8 ms·

I often say to my fellow engineers that software engineering is a profession of destroying jobs. There doesn't seem to be any follow up discussion though, every

by DenisM 10y ago

I often say to my fellow engineers that software engineering is a profession of destroying jobs. There doesn't seem to be any follow up discussion though, everyone just nods and moves on to the next subject. What can we do? There is no stopping the train of automation.

snerbles 10y ago
It seems that us as engineers either partake in pushing these souls into oblivion or join them. I see no way out unless we invent an economic use for those who will be useless.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I bring learning from a distant shore! Over in India we've found an economic use for all those who will be useless! https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_our_jobs.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_ou...
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    So the solution is that the US should abolish the minimum wage and make it possible to cheaply bribe your way out of following regulations, so that middle class people can afford servants again?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Yes, we should abolish the minimum wage, and if necessary directly subsidize the poor with EITC and similar programs. That will reduce disincentives. Of course, if we really cared about reducing poverty and inequality, we'd just skip the EITC and open our borders - but obviously the massive amounts of inequality between an American and an Indian are far less important than the relatively small amounts of inequality between two Americans. Another solution is a basic job - basically a basic income, but you need to work for it (e.g., fixing our crumbling infrastructure and providing free child care for working mothers).
      - unprepare 10y ago
        >Another solution is a basic job - basically a basic income, but you need to work for it (e.g., fixing our crumbling infrastructure and providing free child care for working mothers). So you want to nationalize the construction and child care industries? This is radically more communist than any basic income scheme i've ever heard of.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        When did I say that? All I propose is putting people on welfare to work on all the left wing's favorite projects. This will save money (we can reuse the existing pool of welfare money rather than finding new money to pay Davis-Bacon wages) and reduce work disincentives (either do a sucky government job or go be a maid).
        unprepare 10y ago
        You are talking about the government providing jobs to citizens in private companies? How does that work? The government interviews you and places you with a construction company who has no say in who is hired? Thats nationalization of an industry
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm proposing to have them work directly for the government, FDR style. You go to the government and say you can't find work, and they say "go to X location and do what the foreman says, you get paid $7.25 x 8 hours at the end of the day".
  - whichfawkes 10y ago
    Well this is a great way to go from "some poor people have jobs and can barely afford rent" to "Why is everybody homeless now?".
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Step 1: Poor person produces something useful, rather than simply consuming. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Everyone is homeless? Could you fill in step 2 for me? I'm not following your logic.
      - imtringued 10y ago
        Poor person accepts job paying 1$/hour to compete with indian wages.
        sokoloff 10y ago
        Absent coercion, I'd assume that was that person's free choice and that taking whatever state subsidy was implied plug $40/week is better than just the state subsidy. (Work provides a way to fill the time, have social interactions, and a sense of purpose and accomplishment, in addition to the financial aspect.)
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        See my other comment - if you want to transfer wealth to the poor you can do this with EITC or other programs that don't discourage work. A job guarantee is my preferred policy. (And keep the borders closed - poor brown people don't even count for 3/5.) Also, you seem to be imagining that if landlords of poor people would rather get $0/month in rent (with houses going vacant) than reduce rents. When did landlords become so non-greedy?
- mousa 10y ago
  No economic use is not oblivion. Being useless needs to somehow be destigmatized while not being encouraged. It's not the end of the world, there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others, there are some happy people with special needs who we don't try to make work and retired people who still enjoy life. There's no reason we can't have people being happy doing hobbies some day if we can get past training ourselves to feel like shit when we're not doing useless but socially necessary work (which is what most jobs are rapidly turning into). Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others Monks choose to live that way. Most people need more than money to survive. They need challenge and creativity, too. > Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet. Scandinavian countries have had better social programs for years. It's why the wealthy in the US fear discussion of things like basic income. They don't want to pay the tax rates of those countries.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      There are countless ways to find challenge and creativity that don't involve working for money. In fact, most paying jobs are pretty bad at satisfying that need.
      - studentrob 10y ago
        I totally agree with you. I should have been more clear. In my opinion, some people want to work. They want to contribute to society and receive validation in the form of a variable salary that can go up or down according to their contribution. Others don't. Both are fine. Calling people "useless" is not a great selling point for basic income. It strikes a nerve with some people [1], and while I think the post I just cited went over the top, I see what they're getting at. Useless is subjective. I wouldn't call monks or anyone else useless. Yet, this is one of Altman's reasons for supporting basic income [2]. I don't think he intended his statement to be interpreted that way. It is what it is. [1] https://medium.com/the-development-set/silicon-valley-s-unchecked-arrogance-d86cbb8db52#.np2agx5by https://medium.com/the-development-set/silicon-valley-s-unch... [2] http://www.techinsider.io/sam-altman-praises-basic-income-on-freakonomics-podcast-2016-4 http://www.techinsider.io/sam-altman-praises-basic-income-on...
CodeMage 10y ago
Of course there's no followup discussion. The fact that software engineering is "destroying jobs" is the wrong problem to focus on, but any discussion that approaches the right problem -- capitalism -- is practically taboo in United States.
- unimpressive 10y ago
  But what's the alternative? Removing the incentive gradient of capitalism doesn't create paradise, it just creates a new incentive gradient that can be even more perverse and horrifying than the last. http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Broken-clock Ayn Rand did get something right in a scene in Atlas Shrugged where the [malicious and grossly incompetent] government figures toast to the "end of the age of money," and are interrupted by a [flawless and endlessly brilliant] capitalist who warns them that it will only usher in "the age of pull." Power and money are largely interchangeable in a free market world where there's always a way to get what you want. At least money can be measured, and that makes it honest, sort of.
    - Kostchei 10y ago
      except, when you start looking into cash//fiat money (as opposed to promissory notes), it is anonymous and inherently dis-honest. What would be honest is a system where the "wealth" associated with an action could be traced. You could tell when wealth from a prostitution transaction, collected by a pimp, was paid to a councilman or official as a bribe. Our current cash system washes that stain and banks do their best to maintain that "privacy", with varying degrees of success.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    But don't forget about http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. Capitalism, while great initially, is getting very problematic now - its incentive gradients pull us more and more in directions we don't want to go. We need to alter those gradients, it's not a question anymore. I don't think there's a coherent "ideology" that would be better (nor do I generally think accepting ideologies wholesale is a good idea), but UBI feels like a part of the right solution.
cossatot 10y ago
Spend some time in some of these communities and figure out how to help? I don't think technology or software should be taken only to mean automation. A lot of fertile ground is opened up by easier communication, and many enterprises fail by inefficiency. Anything to help rural marketplaces or small businesses or healthcare could be very valuable.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Kalium 10y ago
What's there to say? We "destroy jobs" in the same way that cars destroyed professional carriage drivers and automated looms hand-weavers. Phone systems no longer run on switchboards. Few of these are considered major losses for society. I once worked on a product that did a guy's 40-hour-a-week job completely. He had spent every working hour compiling a series of reports by hand. Then he spent none, because we did it for him. He was our happiest customer.
a13n 10y ago
I would guess the discussion ends there because your fellow software engineers (myself included) don't see automation as a bad thing. Algorithms become smarter, processes more efficient, production cheaper and faster, etc. How is this worse? It's not. Soon truck driving will be automated. This will eliminate millions of jobs. We need to figure out a system that supports people regardless of employment. We need to figure it out by yesterday. I'm a firm believer that basic income is that system and that automation should fund it.
- zeemonkee3 10y ago
  When basic income is a done deal, then maybe. But it's not, and in a toxic and divided political system basic income - and other necessities, like modern universal health care - are not guaranteed for years, if not decades.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I personally don't see automation as a bad thing in principle. But without universal basic income (and a real chance for it in the current political climate), it poses the danger of fucking the world over big time. Think multiple simultaneous French Revolutions, or maybe even a world war. This is not something I want to see, and I shy away from even thinking about it. Moreover, a lot of those people we're automating away are our friends and family members. Who do you think will they turn to for support? I'm already preparing myself for the possibility of supporting some tech-illiterates in my family in the future.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
studentrob 10y ago
> What can we do? There is no stopping the train of automation. Spend a year or two teaching people to program. It'll give your brain a nice rest It won't solve the world's problems but that's something you can do as an individual. Or you can read about your local politicians and start a Facebook page to support the ones whose views you share. Job functions have been changing since the cracking of coconuts with rocks. There is no need to stop this train. Teaching helps society advance. If we spend some time teaching programming, whether formally or informally, I think that counts for a lot.

by DenisM 10y ago

snerbles 10y ago

It seems that us as engineers either partake in pushing these souls into oblivion or join them. I see no way out unless we invent an economic use for those who will be useless.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I bring learning from a distant shore! Over in India we've found an economic use for all those who will be useless! https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_our_jobs.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_ou...
- pjlegato 10y ago
  So the solution is that the US should abolish the minimum wage and make it possible to cheaply bribe your way out of following regulations, so that middle class people can afford servants again?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Yes, we should abolish the minimum wage, and if necessary directly subsidize the poor with EITC and similar programs. That will reduce disincentives. Of course, if we really cared about reducing poverty and inequality, we'd just skip the EITC and open our borders - but obviously the massive amounts of inequality between an American and an Indian are far less important than the relatively small amounts of inequality between two Americans. Another solution is a basic job - basically a basic income, but you need to work for it (e.g., fixing our crumbling infrastructure and providing free child care for working mothers).
    - unprepare 10y ago
      >Another solution is a basic job - basically a basic income, but you need to work for it (e.g., fixing our crumbling infrastructure and providing free child care for working mothers). So you want to nationalize the construction and child care industries? This is radically more communist than any basic income scheme i've ever heard of.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        When did I say that? All I propose is putting people on welfare to work on all the left wing's favorite projects. This will save money (we can reuse the existing pool of welfare money rather than finding new money to pay Davis-Bacon wages) and reduce work disincentives (either do a sucky government job or go be a maid).
        unprepare 10y ago
        You are talking about the government providing jobs to citizens in private companies? How does that work? The government interviews you and places you with a construction company who has no say in who is hired? Thats nationalization of an industry
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm proposing to have them work directly for the government, FDR style. You go to the government and say you can't find work, and they say "go to X location and do what the foreman says, you get paid $7.25 x 8 hours at the end of the day".
- whichfawkes 10y ago
  Well this is a great way to go from "some poor people have jobs and can barely afford rent" to "Why is everybody homeless now?".
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Step 1: Poor person produces something useful, rather than simply consuming. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Everyone is homeless? Could you fill in step 2 for me? I'm not following your logic.
    - imtringued 10y ago
      Poor person accepts job paying 1$/hour to compete with indian wages.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        Absent coercion, I'd assume that was that person's free choice and that taking whatever state subsidy was implied plug $40/week is better than just the state subsidy. (Work provides a way to fill the time, have social interactions, and a sense of purpose and accomplishment, in addition to the financial aspect.)
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        See my other comment - if you want to transfer wealth to the poor you can do this with EITC or other programs that don't discourage work. A job guarantee is my preferred policy. (And keep the borders closed - poor brown people don't even count for 3/5.) Also, you seem to be imagining that if landlords of poor people would rather get $0/month in rent (with houses going vacant) than reduce rents. When did landlords become so non-greedy?
mousa 10y ago
No economic use is not oblivion. Being useless needs to somehow be destigmatized while not being encouraged. It's not the end of the world, there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others, there are some happy people with special needs who we don't try to make work and retired people who still enjoy life. There's no reason we can't have people being happy doing hobbies some day if we can get past training ourselves to feel like shit when we're not doing useless but socially necessary work (which is what most jobs are rapidly turning into). Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others Monks choose to live that way. Most people need more than money to survive. They need challenge and creativity, too. > Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet. Scandinavian countries have had better social programs for years. It's why the wealthy in the US fear discussion of things like basic income. They don't want to pay the tax rates of those countries.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    There are countless ways to find challenge and creativity that don't involve working for money. In fact, most paying jobs are pretty bad at satisfying that need.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      I totally agree with you. I should have been more clear. In my opinion, some people want to work. They want to contribute to society and receive validation in the form of a variable salary that can go up or down according to their contribution. Others don't. Both are fine. Calling people "useless" is not a great selling point for basic income. It strikes a nerve with some people [1], and while I think the post I just cited went over the top, I see what they're getting at. Useless is subjective. I wouldn't call monks or anyone else useless. Yet, this is one of Altman's reasons for supporting basic income [2]. I don't think he intended his statement to be interpreted that way. It is what it is. [1] https://medium.com/the-development-set/silicon-valley-s-unchecked-arrogance-d86cbb8db52#.np2agx5by https://medium.com/the-development-set/silicon-valley-s-unch... [2] http://www.techinsider.io/sam-altman-praises-basic-income-on-freakonomics-podcast-2016-4 http://www.techinsider.io/sam-altman-praises-basic-income-on...

CodeMage 10y ago

Of course there's no followup discussion. The fact that software engineering is "destroying jobs" is the wrong problem to focus on, but any discussion that approaches the right problem -- capitalism -- is practically taboo in United States.

unimpressive 10y ago
But what's the alternative? Removing the incentive gradient of capitalism doesn't create paradise, it just creates a new incentive gradient that can be even more perverse and horrifying than the last. http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://www.sigcis.org/?q=node/85 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Broken-clock Ayn Rand did get something right in a scene in Atlas Shrugged where the [malicious and grossly incompetent] government figures toast to the "end of the age of money," and are interrupted by a [flawless and endlessly brilliant] capitalist who warns them that it will only usher in "the age of pull." Power and money are largely interchangeable in a free market world where there's always a way to get what you want. At least money can be measured, and that makes it honest, sort of.
  - Kostchei 10y ago
    except, when you start looking into cash//fiat money (as opposed to promissory notes), it is anonymous and inherently dis-honest. What would be honest is a system where the "wealth" associated with an action could be traced. You could tell when wealth from a prostitution transaction, collected by a pimp, was paid to a councilman or official as a bribe. Our current cash system washes that stain and banks do their best to maintain that "privacy", with varying degrees of success.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  But don't forget about http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. Capitalism, while great initially, is getting very problematic now - its incentive gradients pull us more and more in directions we don't want to go. We need to alter those gradients, it's not a question anymore. I don't think there's a coherent "ideology" that would be better (nor do I generally think accepting ideologies wholesale is a good idea), but UBI feels like a part of the right solution.

cossatot 10y ago

Spend some time in some of these communities and figure out how to help? I don't think technology or software should be taken only to mean automation. A lot of fertile ground is opened up by easier communication, and many enterprises fail by inefficiency. Anything to help rural marketplaces or small businesses or healthcare could be very valuable.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Kalium 10y ago

What's there to say? We "destroy jobs" in the same way that cars destroyed professional carriage drivers and automated looms hand-weavers. Phone systems no longer run on switchboards. Few of these are considered major losses for society. I once worked on a product that did a guy's 40-hour-a-week job completely. He had spent every working hour compiling a series of reports by hand. Then he spent none, because we did it for him. He was our happiest customer.

a13n 10y ago

I would guess the discussion ends there because your fellow software engineers (myself included) don't see automation as a bad thing. Algorithms become smarter, processes more efficient, production cheaper and faster, etc. How is this worse? It's not. Soon truck driving will be automated. This will eliminate millions of jobs. We need to figure out a system that supports people regardless of employment. We need to figure it out by yesterday. I'm a firm believer that basic income is that system and that automation should fund it.

zeemonkee3 10y ago
When basic income is a done deal, then maybe. But it's not, and in a toxic and divided political system basic income - and other necessities, like modern universal health care - are not guaranteed for years, if not decades.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
I personally don't see automation as a bad thing in principle. But without universal basic income (and a real chance for it in the current political climate), it poses the danger of fucking the world over big time. Think multiple simultaneous French Revolutions, or maybe even a world war. This is not something I want to see, and I shy away from even thinking about it. Moreover, a lot of those people we're automating away are our friends and family members. Who do you think will they turn to for support? I'm already preparing myself for the possibility of supporting some tech-illiterates in my family in the future.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

studentrob 10y ago

> What can we do? There is no stopping the train of automation. Spend a year or two teaching people to program. It'll give your brain a nice rest It won't solve the world's problems but that's something you can do as an individual. Or you can read about your local politicians and start a Facebook page to support the ones whose views you share. Job functions have been changing since the cracking of coconuts with rocks. There is no need to stop this train. Teaching helps society advance. If we spend some time teaching programming, whether formally or informally, I think that counts for a lot.