12 ms·
E-gads man, this is terrible. This reminds me of when you first watch the Matrix. If you're young, you spend a while thinking "But it could all just be a simul
by DanielBMarkham 15y ago
E-gads man, this is terrible.
This reminds me of when you first watch the Matrix. If you're young, you spend a while thinking "But it could all just be a simulation!" Until you finally realize that yes, it could all just be a simulation, but it doesn't matter. You grasp the really cool part of the concept -- we all live on computers -- and forget that details and practical implications -- simulated people living in a simulation and real people living in reality aren't really different. So it doesn't matter.
Likewise, this author has realized the great revelation that strikes everybody who looks around: jobs are going away! There are no more buggy-whip manufacturers, chimney sweeps, blacksmiths, coopers, automobile welders, and so on. In fact, it's only getting worse! Technology accumulates on itself. Pretty soon we'll be able to make anything!
Okay fine, but here's the details that are very important to remember: economies don't run on jobs, they run on the creation and distribution of scarcities. Being able to build your own B-1 bomber in your basement isn't going to make everybody's job go away. Jobs are not about building tangible things. They are about providing something people want. Yes, you might only need a few chefs for each cuisine worldwide in order to manufacture food, but eating is about much more than simply consuming things that have been manufactured. So while the eating experience may evolve, there's no guarantees one way or the other about how chefs fit into the picture. We simply don't know.
I could go on, but you get the gist: those things that involve simple, robotic, manufacturing of goods will commodotize. But that doesn't matter. Making movies cost a millionth as much as it did 100 years ago; it's mostly free. But we still make and distribute movies even though the manufacturing cost is negligible.
Visit a retirement community for rich people. They have most every physical need they could want -- food, goods, services. Yet the economy flourishes. There are social events, artistic events, clubs, contests, etc. People without any physical needs still create and distribute things that are scarce. The economy isn't going anywhere.
Worse yet, the author takes his limited understanding of the world, extrapolates it, then calls for a war on efficiency! Good grief, it's so lame it's almost trolling.
People ask me what I worry about most? It's that we never leave this planet. It's that the millions of people like this who want to war on efficiency, capitalism, science, and technology, finally win. We stagnate. The Great Fizzle.
- tansey 15y ago> Good grief, it's so lame it's almost trolling. Because it is trolling. HN is reading, upvoting, and commenting on an economics essay by someone who studied "Fine Arts" at the "School of Visual Arts" in NY and now works at "CYCLE Interactive" as a designer. The author hand waves about the 80/20 rule as if discussing things using their own common sense is equivalent to mathematical rigor or scientific evidence. It's simply a link-bait headline that evokes a response from a large portion of the users on HN. Honestly, it's disturbing how many red flags there are in this article and yet it makes the front page of HN. Everyone's half-baked opinion is not equal. The way I feel every time I watch a movie where a machine spontaneously "comes alive", and then have to listen to people talk about "what if it really happened", must be similar to how economists feel every day. No wonder it's the dismal science.
- bestes 15y agoIgnore an idea/essay/whatever because the author doesn't have a college degree in the area?
- knowtheory 15y agoActually i think HN has just taken down the article on its merits, i.e. that it has none. What remains a mystery is why this was upvoted in the first place.
- rphlx 15y agoIt's upvoted because, after people post a comment utterly destroying it, they want their comment's unique wisdom and intelligence to be visible to others. Even (maybe, especially) when the original article is garbage. It's a perverse incentive problem in social news.
- knowtheory 15y agoWell, i will add that the major determinant for whether an article stays on the front page is whether there is an active discussion. So the more chatter there is, the longer it stays on the homepage. The longer it stays on the home page, the more people upboat it without reading the post or the comments. But that's me retreating to the study of aggregate behavior. sigh