4 ms·

Erm... How many people are fed by a combine harvester driver? How many babies and mothers are saved by the staff of a modern hospital, who drastically lower chi

by _yosefk 11y ago

Erm... How many people are fed by a combine harvester driver? How many babies and mothers are saved by the staff of a modern hospital, who drastically lower child mortality? If 10 future programmers are delivered by a single nurse, should she be paid 10x what a programmer makes? (Supply and demand I get, "force multiplier" I don't get.)

paulmd 11y ago
If a combine harvester allows a farmer to feed as many people as 100 farmers working by hand then they have a force multiplier of 100x. If you can train one nurse to deliver as many babies as 10 normal nurses then they have a force-multiplier of 10x. This doesn't necessarily translate into 10x or 100x the salary - farming is still an extremely capital-intensive business, probably moreso than it was pre-Green Revolution. Tractors and fuel and fertilizer don't buy themselves. There really hasn't been a single improvement that produced a 10x improvement in the number of babies a nurse can deliver. Maybe if someone goes out and invents the robo-midwife, but I can't see that being real popular... The other way you can go is a qualitative improvement, which is where the child mortality example comes in. If one engineer can remove 75% of the fuck-ups caused by manually performing a task, then that is also worth money, but it's not valued in quite the same way. You'd value lower child-mortality in person-years of economic output (accrued to society), quality-adjusted-life-years (accrued to the individual) and diminished malpractice suits/insurance (accrued to the hospital or the insurance company). Perhaps a better term would be "productivity multiplier". Productivity is a pretty standard economic measure (average economic output per individual), and engineers both have much higher economic output per individual, and can greatly increase that output for other individuals as well (often with a one-time investment).
- imtringued 11y ago
  The business doesn't care. They try to narrow down the potential employees to those who can do the job and then pick the cheapest.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  I got that "force multiplier" had to do with productivity, but I didn't get how compensation is supposed to be set as a function of productivity (as opposed to supply and demand, and/or arbitrary rules), or even why it should be. Certainly (and thankfully, for those of us buying their food) a combine harvester driver does not get paid 100x the compensation of a farmer who harvested before combine harvesters were invented (of course the driver neither invented nor manufactured the combine harvester; well, a programmer neither invented nor made computers - or compilers, or most of the ideas they apply.) I kind of believe, I think not controversially, that compensation results from supply, demand, and a bunch of more or less arbitrary rules which either affect supply & demand or directly affect the price (price controls, visa regimes, etc.) Productivity (value created) sets an upper bound for compensation (well, actually, it doesn't, perceived productivity does; and even that isn't true - building a barely working website for the government for several hundreds of millions of dollars is one of the countless counter-examples), but productivity certainly does not set a lower bound for compensation - competition does. How much labor you save is beside the point.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
I know your question is rhetorical, but a single combine harvester driver can 'feed' about 10,000 people in a couple of weeks. If the driver is the owner/operator of a farm, that's all they do, but there are some who do the circuit, starting in Texas in May and finishing in Northern Alberta in October.
andreineculau 11y ago
Hilarious but effective argument:) I'll start using it. Thanks!
turnip1979 11y ago
I think SW engineers have to go through a lot of of specialized training that is short term in nature. Friends in the med field studied a lot to get the job but they hardly have to spend as much time as I do to keep up. I'm only in my mid 30s and a majority of the tech I use was invented after I graduated.
- lorenzhs 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_medical_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_medical_education Doctors have to do 50-80 hours per year of certified continuing education thingies. That's probably way less than the average software engineer, but at least now we have a concrete number :)
  - Thrymr 11y ago
    That's formal continuing education. I'd like to see the concrete number for software engineers. There is no similar standard for continued training. Sure, software engineers are always learning new things, and many do so intentionally, but my guess is that the average amount of formal continuing education is far less than doctors.
    - turnip1979 11y ago
      Sorry ... have you seen the quality of continuing ed classes for doctors? Clinic decor 101, computer billing systems 101, sign in your hours at the exit, etc.
      - tamana 11y ago
        More like "Prescriboflex 101" , "Xyloprescribex 101", enjoy the buffet at the baseball game etc

by _yosefk 11y ago

paulmd 11y ago

If a combine harvester allows a farmer to feed as many people as 100 farmers working by hand then they have a force multiplier of 100x. If you can train one nurse to deliver as many babies as 10 normal nurses then they have a force-multiplier of 10x. This doesn't necessarily translate into 10x or 100x the salary - farming is still an extremely capital-intensive business, probably moreso than it was pre-Green Revolution. Tractors and fuel and fertilizer don't buy themselves. There really hasn't been a single improvement that produced a 10x improvement in the number of babies a nurse can deliver. Maybe if someone goes out and invents the robo-midwife, but I can't see that being real popular... The other way you can go is a qualitative improvement, which is where the child mortality example comes in. If one engineer can remove 75% of the fuck-ups caused by manually performing a task, then that is also worth money, but it's not valued in quite the same way. You'd value lower child-mortality in person-years of economic output (accrued to society), quality-adjusted-life-years (accrued to the individual) and diminished malpractice suits/insurance (accrued to the hospital or the insurance company). Perhaps a better term would be "productivity multiplier". Productivity is a pretty standard economic measure (average economic output per individual), and engineers both have much higher economic output per individual, and can greatly increase that output for other individuals as well (often with a one-time investment).

imtringued 11y ago
The business doesn't care. They try to narrow down the potential employees to those who can do the job and then pick the cheapest.
_yosefk 11y ago
I got that "force multiplier" had to do with productivity, but I didn't get how compensation is supposed to be set as a function of productivity (as opposed to supply and demand, and/or arbitrary rules), or even why it should be. Certainly (and thankfully, for those of us buying their food) a combine harvester driver does not get paid 100x the compensation of a farmer who harvested before combine harvesters were invented (of course the driver neither invented nor manufactured the combine harvester; well, a programmer neither invented nor made computers - or compilers, or most of the ideas they apply.) I kind of believe, I think not controversially, that compensation results from supply, demand, and a bunch of more or less arbitrary rules which either affect supply & demand or directly affect the price (price controls, visa regimes, etc.) Productivity (value created) sets an upper bound for compensation (well, actually, it doesn't, perceived productivity does; and even that isn't true - building a barely working website for the government for several hundreds of millions of dollars is one of the countless counter-examples), but productivity certainly does not set a lower bound for compensation - competition does. How much labor you save is beside the point.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

I know your question is rhetorical, but a single combine harvester driver can 'feed' about 10,000 people in a couple of weeks. If the driver is the owner/operator of a farm, that's all they do, but there are some who do the circuit, starting in Texas in May and finishing in Northern Alberta in October.

andreineculau 11y ago

Hilarious but effective argument:) I'll start using it. Thanks!

turnip1979 11y ago

I think SW engineers have to go through a lot of of specialized training that is short term in nature. Friends in the med field studied a lot to get the job but they hardly have to spend as much time as I do to keep up. I'm only in my mid 30s and a majority of the tech I use was invented after I graduated.

lorenzhs 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_medical_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_medical_education Doctors have to do 50-80 hours per year of certified continuing education thingies. That's probably way less than the average software engineer, but at least now we have a concrete number :)
- Thrymr 11y ago
  That's formal continuing education. I'd like to see the concrete number for software engineers. There is no similar standard for continued training. Sure, software engineers are always learning new things, and many do so intentionally, but my guess is that the average amount of formal continuing education is far less than doctors.
  - turnip1979 11y ago
    Sorry ... have you seen the quality of continuing ed classes for doctors? Clinic decor 101, computer billing systems 101, sign in your hours at the exit, etc.
    - tamana 11y ago
      More like "Prescriboflex 101" , "Xyloprescribex 101", enjoy the buffet at the baseball game etc