3 ms·

What about all the people that have no interest or ability to code? What happens when everyone does code? Wages collapse.

Consultant32452 9y ago
The idea that you should have an interest in what you do for money is a new one and I think fairly unhealthy. It's part of the reason why we have so many young people with degrees in underwater basketweaving who can't find work in their majors. We're in the midst of an insane sociological revolution regarding "ability." 100 years ago it didn't matter if you had a 140 IQ because you were just out plowing the field the same as your neighbor. For the first time in the history of mankind general cognitive ability is the biggest factor in your ability to acquire resources. Unfortunately that's largely biological in nature. You can reduce IQ pretty easily with poor nutrition, abuse, etc. But it's really hard to raise IQ meaningfully. Life is already difficult for well meaning, hard working people with low cognitive ability, and I think it's only going to get worse. In the meantime, high cognitive ability people will be doing well, whether they're coding or doing other brainy work.
- yorwba 9y ago
  I think the unhealthy idea is that you should work in a field that you have no interest in, just because it pays more than underwater basketweaving, even if that'd still be enough to make a living and you'd enjoy it much more. After a certain fairly low threshold, having more money doesn't automatically make you more happy (i.e. you're already fed and clothed and have a place to sleep). Once you have crossed that threshold, you'll have to weigh work satisfaction against pay, and it may turn out in favor of the low-paying job you enjoy more.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    There's a false dichotomy between you and the grandparent post. Most people have multiple fields they could potentially be interested in, with a wide range of incomes. And conversely, there are multiple fields that generate high incomes, with a wide range of appeal to you. In my view, you should take income as a signal, one piece of information. It's the market telling you which fields are valued by others and yet have too few practitioners. It's not the only signal - you should also listen to your feelings about whether you enjoy the work, whether you feel like you're growing, whether you can live in a geographic location you like, whether you can work hours that suit you, whether the results of your work accord with your values, and so on. But you make tradeoffs between these factors: you don't get to have everything. If you decide to follow your passion with a non-lucrative field, that's fine, but realize that the consequence of your decision is that you will make less than someone whose work is valued more highly by the market. And it's up to you to decide whether the things you could buy with that money are worth more than the experience of doing the job.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I think you have a very privileged view of what work is like. Most people will not have a career, they'll have a series of jobs. Most people do not have a broad range of opportunities to choose from which will offer them economic security. Enjoyment of the work is a factor, but it's so far behind economic security that I'm not sure it should be mentioned in conversations with young people when giving them advice about their economic future. Doing so tends to lead to a false equivalence. Economic stability is first and foremost.
      - SapphireSun 9y ago
        I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. It's really reactionary to say that someone that aspires to a healthy lifestyle is asking for too much. In this incredibly wealthy country, we can afford that. Many would argue, myself included, that the failure of aspirational thinking is producing the current crisis.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        >I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. Perhaps I'm not parsing this properly, but it sounds like you're suggesting we should advise children on how to navigate the fantasy society you want to live in rather than giving them sober advice based on objective reality.
        SapphireSun 9y ago
        I don't think it's either or. We should give sober advice while acknowledging that a better future is possible. One without the other alternatively doesn't keep the door to that better future open or isn't practical.
        ArialAnemone 9y ago
        The failure of aspirational thinking was by its own doing. Aspirational thinking doesn't arise in a world where apes look at screens showing the screens where apes... I just see a lot of addicted people who are given a garbage culture and conform to it. Society gives them garbage food, garbage values, garbage media, garbage circadian rhythm, etc. Aspirational thinking doesn't thrive in such conditions. What is there truly to aspire to? Especially when these Hollywood types shovel garbage out and lower the value of our cognitive frames. The beautiful God has been killed and replaced with crap. Now there was an aspiration! How do you replace that with terminology that any blue collar worker recognizes as coming from some inhuman psychopath's mouth? You don't. Nowadays, we're sophisticated enough to shrug off such thoughts and worries.
  - ejnulls 9y ago
    Tbh, we'd likely have a much more equitable society if people only prioritized compensation for their careers.

Consultant32452 9y ago

The idea that you should have an interest in what you do for money is a new one and I think fairly unhealthy. It's part of the reason why we have so many young people with degrees in underwater basketweaving who can't find work in their majors. We're in the midst of an insane sociological revolution regarding "ability." 100 years ago it didn't matter if you had a 140 IQ because you were just out plowing the field the same as your neighbor. For the first time in the history of mankind general cognitive ability is the biggest factor in your ability to acquire resources. Unfortunately that's largely biological in nature. You can reduce IQ pretty easily with poor nutrition, abuse, etc. But it's really hard to raise IQ meaningfully. Life is already difficult for well meaning, hard working people with low cognitive ability, and I think it's only going to get worse. In the meantime, high cognitive ability people will be doing well, whether they're coding or doing other brainy work.

yorwba 9y ago
I think the unhealthy idea is that you should work in a field that you have no interest in, just because it pays more than underwater basketweaving, even if that'd still be enough to make a living and you'd enjoy it much more. After a certain fairly low threshold, having more money doesn't automatically make you more happy (i.e. you're already fed and clothed and have a place to sleep). Once you have crossed that threshold, you'll have to weigh work satisfaction against pay, and it may turn out in favor of the low-paying job you enjoy more.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  There's a false dichotomy between you and the grandparent post. Most people have multiple fields they could potentially be interested in, with a wide range of incomes. And conversely, there are multiple fields that generate high incomes, with a wide range of appeal to you. In my view, you should take income as a signal, one piece of information. It's the market telling you which fields are valued by others and yet have too few practitioners. It's not the only signal - you should also listen to your feelings about whether you enjoy the work, whether you feel like you're growing, whether you can live in a geographic location you like, whether you can work hours that suit you, whether the results of your work accord with your values, and so on. But you make tradeoffs between these factors: you don't get to have everything. If you decide to follow your passion with a non-lucrative field, that's fine, but realize that the consequence of your decision is that you will make less than someone whose work is valued more highly by the market. And it's up to you to decide whether the things you could buy with that money are worth more than the experience of doing the job.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I think you have a very privileged view of what work is like. Most people will not have a career, they'll have a series of jobs. Most people do not have a broad range of opportunities to choose from which will offer them economic security. Enjoyment of the work is a factor, but it's so far behind economic security that I'm not sure it should be mentioned in conversations with young people when giving them advice about their economic future. Doing so tends to lead to a false equivalence. Economic stability is first and foremost.
    - SapphireSun 9y ago
      I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. It's really reactionary to say that someone that aspires to a healthy lifestyle is asking for too much. In this incredibly wealthy country, we can afford that. Many would argue, myself included, that the failure of aspirational thinking is producing the current crisis.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        >I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. Perhaps I'm not parsing this properly, but it sounds like you're suggesting we should advise children on how to navigate the fantasy society you want to live in rather than giving them sober advice based on objective reality.
        SapphireSun 9y ago
        I don't think it's either or. We should give sober advice while acknowledging that a better future is possible. One without the other alternatively doesn't keep the door to that better future open or isn't practical.
      - ArialAnemone 9y ago
        The failure of aspirational thinking was by its own doing. Aspirational thinking doesn't arise in a world where apes look at screens showing the screens where apes... I just see a lot of addicted people who are given a garbage culture and conform to it. Society gives them garbage food, garbage values, garbage media, garbage circadian rhythm, etc. Aspirational thinking doesn't thrive in such conditions. What is there truly to aspire to? Especially when these Hollywood types shovel garbage out and lower the value of our cognitive frames. The beautiful God has been killed and replaced with crap. Now there was an aspiration! How do you replace that with terminology that any blue collar worker recognizes as coming from some inhuman psychopath's mouth? You don't. Nowadays, we're sophisticated enough to shrug off such thoughts and worries.
- ejnulls 9y ago
  Tbh, we'd likely have a much more equitable society if people only prioritized compensation for their careers.