4 ms·

Instead of applauding this (oh, they are spreading knowledge), I'm going to point out that they just want cheaper labour.

amrrs 10y ago
In fact it's the opposite, they can get cheap labor - if the labor is ignorant - not with knowledge! Hypothesis failed!
- eru 10y ago
  While I don't agree with lineindc, they are clearly talking about unit costs or something else that measures price per productivity.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
What are you trying to say? You want education to be less accessible, so that poor people cannot compete with you?
- lineindc 10y ago
  Computer science is like a self-devaluating industry. We have tons of websites dedicated to teaching our trade, most of them for free. We actively encourage everybody to learn to code, and tell them how easy it is, and how it makes you a better person. We say schools should teach everybody how to code. Do you imagine medics, attorneys, engineers, etc doing the same things about their own professions/skills? "Yes I'm an architect... yeah but you should learn the same skillset, this thing I do is super easy! Everybody could be an architect easily!" Of course corporations like this: more coders! Cheaper labour! For example I found this video disgusting while everybody else applauded the effort: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc Do you really think your (our) skillset is worth 0?
  - BorgHunter 10y ago
    What I'm getting from your post is: When you teach other people, you devalue your own knowledge. Knowledge should be hoarded, guarded jealously, and others discouraged from learning the things you know. Because if knowledge is shared, that knowledge becomes less valuable, and so you are less valuable, and so can earn less money. Is this a fair statement of your views, or am I misinterpreting you?
    - ElysianEagle 10y ago
      I didn't interpret his post the same way as you did. I think he was suggesting that we, as programmers, tend to act in ways that are not necessarily conducive to maintaining our own job security. We often advocate (strongly even) for importing labor, making CS education and tools cheap/free etc. all of which while certainly making knowledge more accessible also increases the supply of coders. And it's true, you definitely don't see doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. acting in the same way. I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy on their part, but the certifications (difficult to obtain), years of schooling etc do have the effect (intended or not) of limiting competition. It's hard to argue for better wages and treatment from employers on one hand, while simultaneously propagating the view that "anyone can do this". Well, if anyone can, then why should you get paid $150k/yr or more?
    - Traubenfuchs 10y ago
      From an individual & egoistical perspective, that is a very logical point of view.
notgood 10y ago
You know why we create software? To automate things, stuff that before required lot of accountants can be now down with software + one accountant. So we made accounting "cheaper" cutting a lot of jobs; should we stop making software because it makes labor cheaper? should we stop making robots because it makes labor cheaper? Fuck that; if socio-economics has a problem we need to find a solution that doesn't involve stopping how far and wide knowledge can be spread.
- jraedisch 10y ago
  "Disrupting" is maybe the most popular reason for creating software. It is not the only reason though. There are others. Like enabling people to do/experience things that weren't possible before.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  The solution clearly isn't to stop making software but the solution also isn't to immediately replace all jobs by a machine. You have people who've worked towards a specialized skillet for most part of their life only to realize that this skill isn't needed anymore. In such situations, we need to come up with mechanisms to help people transition.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- YCode 10y ago
  I got into a discussion about this recently. It seems like most of the time new technology and automation inherently creates less jobs than it depreciates. Meanwhile, the population only goes up. Assuming those two statements are true in a given economy, then this is going to become a major problem for society as the number of people drastically outmatches the number of (skilled?) jobs that need performed. At a certain point we're going to have to find a new paradigm to replace our "compete for a job and you can earn a living" system or else find ourselves in a situation where the employer has all the power and the vast majority of people who can even find work endure terrible conditions.
  - 10y ago
matt4077 10y ago
I'll reserve my right to applaud at the end of the show, even if the singer was just being excellent for the sake of a pay check.
dyukqu 10y ago
I agree with you. Here is my thoughts: spreading knowledge and making it accessible is not a bad thing, of course. But, isn't it true that the current education system (form k-12 to academia) is built to produce a workforce for the industry(2.0)? Here is a quote from a recent HN thread: "Our current system is designed to produce factory workers for the industrial economy, which was adapted to produce knowledge workers for the information economy. But we are moving towards full automation of most of those jobs. We will need to prepare people to be adaptable in a fast changing automated world: more entrepreneurial type skills are needed." [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13533759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13533759] Education for the sake of knowledge/science ended after Industry 2.0. Maybe that's why the world doesn't have great innovators & scientists and giant scientific leaps as got once until late 19th to early 20th century. So, it's true that all the current frantic efforts (bootcamps, online degrees, nanodegrees etc.) to teach youth to code are about pouring easy-accessible workforce into the market - towards the final phase of Industry 3.0. After the Industry 4.0 is arrived, millions of workforce will be left out, IMO.
torrent-of-ions 10y ago
I was wondering what their motivation is. Maybe this is it. It's so strange how so many programmers seem to want other people to learn to program. Why is this? I accepted a long time ago that probably less than 1% of the population have the ability to be a good programmer. And even if more had the ability, do we really need that many programmers? I can't imagine any other industry doing this. I don't go on to the website of 3M, for example, and see stuff teaching me how to make my own glue. When I speak to a lawyer they don't try to teach me how to be a lawyer. Why do so many programmers feel the need to do this?
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  >Why is this? Because they like what they do and sharing knowledge helps you learn and network. Go on youtube and look for tons of drawing tutorials, music creation, sculpting, etc. pretty much anything creative and accessible will have people who will give away knowledge for free, sharing what they discovered or w/e. There's also selection bias, programmers create digital content so it's bound to be over-represented on the internet.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > Why is this? Many of my hardest problems involve people in decision-making positions that don't have any idea about how computers or programs work. Getting the rest of the world to be more conversant in programming will allow for more meaningful work. For example, we know what an EKG and an APB are, but people don't know what a compiler is.
- mej10 10y ago
  Programming is a very general skill that can be applied to almost anything and it has a low barrier to entry. In the view of those promoting programming education it is a skill that everyone should have the opportunity to learn -- more akin to reading or writing than specialized skills like making glue or regulated subjects like law. There is also a lot of room for creativity in programming, which means it probably has a higher chance of being adopted just for fun.
- HeavenBanned 10y ago

amrrs 10y ago

In fact it's the opposite, they can get cheap labor - if the labor is ignorant - not with knowledge! Hypothesis failed!

eru 10y ago
While I don't agree with lineindc, they are clearly talking about unit costs or something else that measures price per productivity.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago

What are you trying to say? You want education to be less accessible, so that poor people cannot compete with you?

lineindc 10y ago
Computer science is like a self-devaluating industry. We have tons of websites dedicated to teaching our trade, most of them for free. We actively encourage everybody to learn to code, and tell them how easy it is, and how it makes you a better person. We say schools should teach everybody how to code. Do you imagine medics, attorneys, engineers, etc doing the same things about their own professions/skills? "Yes I'm an architect... yeah but you should learn the same skillset, this thing I do is super easy! Everybody could be an architect easily!" Of course corporations like this: more coders! Cheaper labour! For example I found this video disgusting while everybody else applauded the effort: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc Do you really think your (our) skillset is worth 0?
- BorgHunter 10y ago
  What I'm getting from your post is: When you teach other people, you devalue your own knowledge. Knowledge should be hoarded, guarded jealously, and others discouraged from learning the things you know. Because if knowledge is shared, that knowledge becomes less valuable, and so you are less valuable, and so can earn less money. Is this a fair statement of your views, or am I misinterpreting you?
  - ElysianEagle 10y ago
    I didn't interpret his post the same way as you did. I think he was suggesting that we, as programmers, tend to act in ways that are not necessarily conducive to maintaining our own job security. We often advocate (strongly even) for importing labor, making CS education and tools cheap/free etc. all of which while certainly making knowledge more accessible also increases the supply of coders. And it's true, you definitely don't see doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. acting in the same way. I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy on their part, but the certifications (difficult to obtain), years of schooling etc do have the effect (intended or not) of limiting competition. It's hard to argue for better wages and treatment from employers on one hand, while simultaneously propagating the view that "anyone can do this". Well, if anyone can, then why should you get paid $150k/yr or more?
  - Traubenfuchs 10y ago
    From an individual & egoistical perspective, that is a very logical point of view.

notgood 10y ago

You know why we create software? To automate things, stuff that before required lot of accountants can be now down with software + one accountant. So we made accounting "cheaper" cutting a lot of jobs; should we stop making software because it makes labor cheaper? should we stop making robots because it makes labor cheaper? Fuck that; if socio-economics has a problem we need to find a solution that doesn't involve stopping how far and wide knowledge can be spread.

jraedisch 10y ago
"Disrupting" is maybe the most popular reason for creating software. It is not the only reason though. There are others. Like enabling people to do/experience things that weren't possible before.
denzil_correa 10y ago
The solution clearly isn't to stop making software but the solution also isn't to immediately replace all jobs by a machine. You have people who've worked towards a specialized skillet for most part of their life only to realize that this skill isn't needed anymore. In such situations, we need to come up with mechanisms to help people transition.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
YCode 10y ago
I got into a discussion about this recently. It seems like most of the time new technology and automation inherently creates less jobs than it depreciates. Meanwhile, the population only goes up. Assuming those two statements are true in a given economy, then this is going to become a major problem for society as the number of people drastically outmatches the number of (skilled?) jobs that need performed. At a certain point we're going to have to find a new paradigm to replace our "compete for a job and you can earn a living" system or else find ourselves in a situation where the employer has all the power and the vast majority of people who can even find work endure terrible conditions.
- 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

I'll reserve my right to applaud at the end of the show, even if the singer was just being excellent for the sake of a pay check.

dyukqu 10y ago

I agree with you. Here is my thoughts: spreading knowledge and making it accessible is not a bad thing, of course. But, isn't it true that the current education system (form k-12 to academia) is built to produce a workforce for the industry(2.0)? Here is a quote from a recent HN thread: "Our current system is designed to produce factory workers for the industrial economy, which was adapted to produce knowledge workers for the information economy. But we are moving towards full automation of most of those jobs. We will need to prepare people to be adaptable in a fast changing automated world: more entrepreneurial type skills are needed." [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13533759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13533759] Education for the sake of knowledge/science ended after Industry 2.0. Maybe that's why the world doesn't have great innovators & scientists and giant scientific leaps as got once until late 19th to early 20th century. So, it's true that all the current frantic efforts (bootcamps, online degrees, nanodegrees etc.) to teach youth to code are about pouring easy-accessible workforce into the market - towards the final phase of Industry 3.0. After the Industry 4.0 is arrived, millions of workforce will be left out, IMO.

torrent-of-ions 10y ago

I was wondering what their motivation is. Maybe this is it. It's so strange how so many programmers seem to want other people to learn to program. Why is this? I accepted a long time ago that probably less than 1% of the population have the ability to be a good programmer. And even if more had the ability, do we really need that many programmers? I can't imagine any other industry doing this. I don't go on to the website of 3M, for example, and see stuff teaching me how to make my own glue. When I speak to a lawyer they don't try to teach me how to be a lawyer. Why do so many programmers feel the need to do this?

rubber_duck 10y ago
>Why is this? Because they like what they do and sharing knowledge helps you learn and network. Go on youtube and look for tons of drawing tutorials, music creation, sculpting, etc. pretty much anything creative and accessible will have people who will give away knowledge for free, sharing what they discovered or w/e. There's also selection bias, programmers create digital content so it's bound to be over-represented on the internet.
humanrebar 10y ago
> Why is this? Many of my hardest problems involve people in decision-making positions that don't have any idea about how computers or programs work. Getting the rest of the world to be more conversant in programming will allow for more meaningful work. For example, we know what an EKG and an APB are, but people don't know what a compiler is.
mej10 10y ago
Programming is a very general skill that can be applied to almost anything and it has a low barrier to entry. In the view of those promoting programming education it is a skill that everyone should have the opportunity to learn -- more akin to reading or writing than specialized skills like making glue or regulated subjects like law. There is also a lot of room for creativity in programming, which means it probably has a higher chance of being adopted just for fun.
HeavenBanned 10y ago