3 ms·

I don't see why programmers, chemists, researchers, engineers, etc. compensation would follow the way of athletes. Those specialists are paid for skilled use of

by raquo 8y ago

I don't see why programmers, chemists, researchers, engineers, etc. compensation would follow the way of athletes. Those specialists are paid for skilled use of their time, they are not paid for being famous. If you have more skills, you get paid more, that's ok. Those fancy 10x programmers don't make regular programmers less valuable though. As for the entertainment industry - too many people agree to be underpaid for a chance to become famous one day. A career in those industries is not employment, it's running a personal brand business. No surprise that outcomes are so unequal.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
While it may not be as extreme as athletes or entertainers, you already see tons of evidence of the huge discrepancy in programmer salaries right here on HN. In every thread about programmer salaries, invariably you'll have a comment about "Senior/Staff developers making $300/$400k+", then some comments from folks saying "I've never heard/seen anything close to those numbers", then other comments about "Those numbers are totally doable at FAANG companies." Valued programmers at the best companies already make several multiples of income over 90%+ of the rest.
- raquo 8y ago
  Sure I see that. What I don't see is how automation will make this variation larger for skilled workers like programmers.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    It has already happened. You absolutely did not see these astronomical programmer salaries 20 years ago (indeed, one reason they've become so astronomical in the past 5 years is equity comp tied to companies that have tripled in value). The reason that top programmers at FAANG companies are able to make so much money is the "automation" of the Internet where you have, for example, a situation where only TWO companies take in nearly 60% of all online digital ad dollars (and that percentage has only recently been falling because Amazon is taking some share). The concentration in market share that the Internet allows also allows for a corresponding concentration in programmer salaries/talent.
    - raquo 8y ago
      And yet despite the monopolies and despite the superstar compensation for top programmers at Google, mediocre programmer salaries did not suffer. Because everyone still needs mediocre programmers. Because they still provide a lot of value. Fighting off monopolistic tendencies and the disproportionate influence of monopolists and oligopolists – both economic and political – is already one of the greatest challenges of capitalism. Automation makes this problem worse because our political institutions are corrupt and incapable of fixing the rise of monopolies, not because automation is bad in itself. And unlike brand recognition, lobbying, and other barriers that monopolists put up to keep their moat safe, automation is generally available to everyone, so it doesn't make sense to penalize it. Inequality is a product of market regulations, not automation. Put a 90% tax on income over $1M, make 20 hour work week / 12 weeks vacation the new standard, introduce a land value tax, make it impossible to hide wealth offshore, and find a good way to distribute all the extra revenue so that people don't starve but still have just enough incentive to work (in a world that needs much less work because of automation). That'll go a long way towards fixing excessive inequality in a heavily automated world. Half of this can be done to great positive effect even today. I don't know, maybe that's "a whole new system" that the author theorized that we need. But really it's just turning a bunch of knobs on the existing system. We haven't tried even that much, and everyone's already spelling doom.
      - 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
        > Inequality is a product of market regulations, not automation. Inequality arises naturally out of many different processes. You can think of the economy right now as being Pareto optimal or efficient; any reallocation of capital will necessarily make one person worse off than another. It is an example of the power law distribution. > Put a 90% tax on income over $1M, make 20 hour work week / 12 weeks vacation the new standard, introduce a land value tax, make it impossible to hide wealth offshore, and find a good way to distribute all the extra revenue so that people don't starve but still have just enough incentive to work (in a world that needs much less work because of automation). That'll go a long way towards fixing excessive inequality in a heavily automated world. Half of this can be done to great positive effect even today. That sounds to me like the way to hell paved with good intentions. If you increase the tax rate to 90% over $1M, those individuals will simply move their assets elsewhere. What's stopping them from investing in real estate in Japan (where you can still get good deals, because the dollar is still relatively strong, even though it soon won't be)? Wealth redistribution sounds nice in theory, where you can feel good about yourself because hey, you're saving the world right? Except you're making things worse. All those wealthy individuals you want to heavily tax will stop hiring here, and suddenly you have a population of very angry people that cannot work anymore. The illusion of a living wage is better than no wage at all. The conclusion of the article, to me, is that the concept of a central bank and a State is obsolete. The future is rich city states with zero regulation, Pareto optimally efficient economies, surrounded by wastelands of those left behind. This is what the Singularity entails.

by raquo 8y ago

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

While it may not be as extreme as athletes or entertainers, you already see tons of evidence of the huge discrepancy in programmer salaries right here on HN. In every thread about programmer salaries, invariably you'll have a comment about "Senior/Staff developers making $300/$400k+", then some comments from folks saying "I've never heard/seen anything close to those numbers", then other comments about "Those numbers are totally doable at FAANG companies." Valued programmers at the best companies already make several multiples of income over 90%+ of the rest.

raquo 8y ago
Sure I see that. What I don't see is how automation will make this variation larger for skilled workers like programmers.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  It has already happened. You absolutely did not see these astronomical programmer salaries 20 years ago (indeed, one reason they've become so astronomical in the past 5 years is equity comp tied to companies that have tripled in value). The reason that top programmers at FAANG companies are able to make so much money is the "automation" of the Internet where you have, for example, a situation where only TWO companies take in nearly 60% of all online digital ad dollars (and that percentage has only recently been falling because Amazon is taking some share). The concentration in market share that the Internet allows also allows for a corresponding concentration in programmer salaries/talent.
  - raquo 8y ago
    And yet despite the monopolies and despite the superstar compensation for top programmers at Google, mediocre programmer salaries did not suffer. Because everyone still needs mediocre programmers. Because they still provide a lot of value. Fighting off monopolistic tendencies and the disproportionate influence of monopolists and oligopolists – both economic and political – is already one of the greatest challenges of capitalism. Automation makes this problem worse because our political institutions are corrupt and incapable of fixing the rise of monopolies, not because automation is bad in itself. And unlike brand recognition, lobbying, and other barriers that monopolists put up to keep their moat safe, automation is generally available to everyone, so it doesn't make sense to penalize it. Inequality is a product of market regulations, not automation. Put a 90% tax on income over $1M, make 20 hour work week / 12 weeks vacation the new standard, introduce a land value tax, make it impossible to hide wealth offshore, and find a good way to distribute all the extra revenue so that people don't starve but still have just enough incentive to work (in a world that needs much less work because of automation). That'll go a long way towards fixing excessive inequality in a heavily automated world. Half of this can be done to great positive effect even today. I don't know, maybe that's "a whole new system" that the author theorized that we need. But really it's just turning a bunch of knobs on the existing system. We haven't tried even that much, and everyone's already spelling doom.
    - 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
      > Inequality is a product of market regulations, not automation. Inequality arises naturally out of many different processes. You can think of the economy right now as being Pareto optimal or efficient; any reallocation of capital will necessarily make one person worse off than another. It is an example of the power law distribution. > Put a 90% tax on income over $1M, make 20 hour work week / 12 weeks vacation the new standard, introduce a land value tax, make it impossible to hide wealth offshore, and find a good way to distribute all the extra revenue so that people don't starve but still have just enough incentive to work (in a world that needs much less work because of automation). That'll go a long way towards fixing excessive inequality in a heavily automated world. Half of this can be done to great positive effect even today. That sounds to me like the way to hell paved with good intentions. If you increase the tax rate to 90% over $1M, those individuals will simply move their assets elsewhere. What's stopping them from investing in real estate in Japan (where you can still get good deals, because the dollar is still relatively strong, even though it soon won't be)? Wealth redistribution sounds nice in theory, where you can feel good about yourself because hey, you're saving the world right? Except you're making things worse. All those wealthy individuals you want to heavily tax will stop hiring here, and suddenly you have a population of very angry people that cannot work anymore. The illusion of a living wage is better than no wage at all. The conclusion of the article, to me, is that the concept of a central bank and a State is obsolete. The future is rich city states with zero regulation, Pareto optimally efficient economies, surrounded by wastelands of those left behind. This is what the Singularity entails.