6 ms·

If Shopify can deliver its software with less people, that’s better for society. Put it this way - would you like to be paid to mow a lawn using scissors? I ca

If Shopify can deliver its software with less people, that’s better for society. Put it this way - would you like to be paid to mow a lawn using scissors? I can pay hundreds of people to mow my lawn using scissors, and they will be employed as landscapers. Or I can pay one guy with a lawnmower.

mochomocha 4y ago
"Bullshit jobs" [1] are a suboptimal and implicit mean to deliver on UBI without superficially changing the rules of capitalism. For exhibit 2, I'll bring in the US military and its economic impact on the midwest. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  The US military is not capitalism. That’s socialism - a job and industry fully dependent on the government and thus is a politically created career. Bullshit jobs don’t exist in the free market, as no capitalist would pay for someone to do something useless. If that is happening it would certainly be because a government regulator required someone to sit there twiddling thumbs.
  - mochomocha 4y ago
    > Bullshit jobs don’t exist in the free market, as no capitalist would pay for someone to do something useless And yet if you spend any time in any large corporation, you'll find countless examples of these, including in the tech industry. Don't you have any friend working for Google/Meta/${big tech co}? Bullshit jobs can and definitely exist with capitalism: any successful and large business is filled with them.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      They may exist for a while but when push comes to shove, they will be eliminated. The government is the one with the real problem - there are bureaucrats who gladly do nothing all day every day, or even actively harm industry, and they can never be fired and exist as barnacles.
      - mochomocha 4y ago
        > They may exist for a while I don't think we should be interested in the "asymptotic theoretical limit" of capitalism which is never reached. Let's discuss "capitalism in practice", not "capitalism in theory". If things self-correct in a time frame longer than your own lifespan, do you think it's an ideal scenario? I personally don't. I don't see the government forcing Google to pay thousands of highly qualified workers to fill in BS jobs. This is a natural consequence of being a very successful business: complacency, empire building, etc all decorellated from economic incentives. People spend decades with BS jobs in a very capitalist society. Note that I've never argued that a socialist alternative is any better or that the government isn't filled with BS jobs either. I just observe that the problem manifests itself regardless.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > If things self-correct in a time frame longer than your own lifespan, do you think it's an ideal scenario? If there is not a better option, then yes.
  - MatekCopatek 4y ago
    > no capitalist would pay for someone to do something useless The issue here is definition of useful/useless. If you manage to market regular rocks as magical and convince people to pay a lot of money for them, a capitalist will gladly pay for everything from digging to shipping of those rocks. From a common sense perspective that activity is useless because it's purely wasting resources with no useful effect. From a capitalist perspective the activity is not useless as it brings profit.
    - flappyeagle 4y ago
      It’s axiomatic. If someone is willing to pay then it’s by definition not useless. Pet rocks are fine as a luxury good. That’s what a wedding ring is.
pixl97 4y ago
Do more with less and less until you do everything with nothing.... The answer to your question is it depends, and is one of the big things that has people worried about AI and automation rapidly improving over time. If things like wealth redistribution don't occur in a highly automated society you end up with big problems really quick.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  It occurs, just not in the direction it should.
- usrusr 4y ago
  And even then economy would not be completely "done", as long as ownership of all that nothing that does everything is still distributed. But when that chapter is also over, imagine the succession drama!
bhargav 4y ago
“Better for society” sounds like an overstatement. I think you mean better for Shopify or their investors. Are you excluding those 20% MFs that are getting fired from Society? Where are they gonna do their scissoring now?
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  You are falling into the trap of the Luddites. As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them. Otherwise why not pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again, forever?
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    straw man analogy. yes, if your end goal is something crazy and unthinkable like functional society with less crime and full of happy, mentally healthy non stressed people. only then keeping people employed even if in some cases it is not the most ruthlessly financially effective thing to do can be desirable
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bhargav 4y ago
    Not saying downsizing does not make sense, but its a stretch to say that its a service to our society to downsize one's company. > As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them This more sounds like a trap mindset to me to be honest. Its associating some sort of morality to what is just regular part of running a business. Companies do what's best for the company and its investors first and foremost.
    - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
      The conceit that there exists human actions that are exempt from “morality” is fundamentally depraved.
dboreham 4y ago
Fewer.
hotpotamus 4y ago
> that’s better for society Increasingly I wonder what this means. What KPIs are you evaluating to determine if society is getting better or worse? And is it?
- osigurdson 4y ago
  Economic growth would certainly suffer if we insisted that no one could ever be let go.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    In context, I understand that you mean let go from jobs, but it doesn't seem like we have much trouble letting people go from society either.
    - osigurdson 4y ago
      What does it mean to let people go from society?
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        As an example, I'd look at the individual who was strangled to death on the New York subway on Monday.
orra 4y ago
> I can pay hundreds of people to mow my lawn using scissors, and they will be employed as landscapers. Or I can pay one guy with a lawnmower. Right, but that's not the actual dichotomy. First, if Shopify can deliver its software with less people, then with the same number of people they could deliver more. Second, realistically the dichotomy, in the short to medium term, is will these people be employed in a skilled job, or will they be unemployed? You might say, that's not Shopify's problem. But let's not pretend unemployed people is "better for society".
- endisneigh 4y ago
  the unemployment rate is 3.5% > then with the same number of people they could deliver more. this is not true to begin with. classic engineering fallacy
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > this is not true to begin with. classic engineering fallacy Are you assuming they'd be put onto the existing projects (which may slow down delivery, yes) rather than doing new projects in parallel (which will not and will in fact let them deliver more because there are more projects)?
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      you're simply doubling down on the fallacy. doing more projects does not mean you're delivering more. code is not value. there needs to be clear demand for what is being produced and management needs to have effective leadership to make sure the right people are doing the right things. all of which require effort. in lieu of that, it's better to lay people off from the company's perspective. if and when they understand the scope of the problem and the demand is there they will hire more people. that's more or less how to economy works.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  You are assuming that there is an infinite number of people that can be added to Shopify’s payroll that will increase the product’s usefulness and increase revenue enough to justify their hiring. The company leadership doesn’t believe that. There is a line where adding more people will not justify enough revenue increase, and that’s up to the company leaders to decide. It’s worse for the people laid off, but ultimately wouldn’t they want to do something useful? In a new job they will be wanted. At Shopify they are not wanted.
megablast 4y ago
> I can pay hundreds of people to mow my lawn using scissors, and they will be employed as landscapers. Or I can pay one guy with a lawnmower. When you argument is to take the extreme, you must understand that it is bullshit, right?
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  On the contrary it is useful to distill an idea into its essence in order to make a point. This is a logical argument, and is the same technique any teacher uses when trying to begin with base principles. It’s tough when you have no counter argument, which is why you resort to arguing against the method rather than thinking of something intelligent.
musingsole 4y ago
Landscaping is a perfect example of how an individual can instantaneously create value in the economy. Banks can create currency, but individuals can magically create value. How? Decide you want your yard to look different. On a whim. Just decide you want a hill over there with a ring of bushes on top. Congratulations, you have created demand. Pay a local crew to have it done, money flows into the economy, everybody eats. For greater effect, manufacture a cultural preference so that entire country clubs of people at a time decide that all hills need bonzai trees at their crest -- have all the clubbers pay all the landscaping crews. A golf course is just a jobs program /s
AndrewKemendo 4y ago
>If Shopify can deliver its software with less people, that’s better for society. What specific measures of society are better? Please use whatever metrics you deem relevant however I'll propose a few options to choose from based on the Harvard Human Flourishing Program [1]: 1. Happiness and life satisfaction 2. Mental and physical health 3. Meaning and purpose 4. Character and virtue 5. Close social relationships [1] https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/measuring-flourishing https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/measuring-flourishing
usrusr 4y ago
Actually the good path, according to abovementioned prophets of capitalism, would be a new player undercutting the incumbent by being able to deliver comparably with less people. An incumbent so unchallenged that they can increase revenue while cutting staff is the economic equivalent of a bad code smell. Perhaps not that market outright failing, but clearly not working quite as advertised.
overrun11 4y ago
Hiring 100 people then getting rid of 99 of them is probably worse for society then just hiring the 1
ROTMetro 4y ago
A restaurant can get away with giving everyone crappy part time work IF the restaurant knows that on demand it can request people to work more hours/extra days. It sounds like an efficient way to run in a grad school sense. But what happens when people start saying no or get sick? The restaurant is closed at odd times, people are inconvenienced and just start going somewhere else, has opportunity costs because it has to pass on that last minute phone in order from an office catering lunch because it's minimally staffed (to be market efficient). Cutting to absolute minimum viable is a horrific concept if you are building a business. You lose your best people, you have a ton of opportunity costs, and you basically give up on growth, productivity goes down as your remaining people have to do way more context switching. If you are running a zombie company and just squeezing the last bits out it might be considered running a business I guess?

mochomocha 4y ago

"Bullshit jobs" [1] are a suboptimal and implicit mean to deliver on UBI without superficially changing the rules of capitalism. For exhibit 2, I'll bring in the US military and its economic impact on the midwest. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

monero-xmr 4y ago
The US military is not capitalism. That’s socialism - a job and industry fully dependent on the government and thus is a politically created career. Bullshit jobs don’t exist in the free market, as no capitalist would pay for someone to do something useless. If that is happening it would certainly be because a government regulator required someone to sit there twiddling thumbs.
- mochomocha 4y ago
  > Bullshit jobs don’t exist in the free market, as no capitalist would pay for someone to do something useless And yet if you spend any time in any large corporation, you'll find countless examples of these, including in the tech industry. Don't you have any friend working for Google/Meta/${big tech co}? Bullshit jobs can and definitely exist with capitalism: any successful and large business is filled with them.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    They may exist for a while but when push comes to shove, they will be eliminated. The government is the one with the real problem - there are bureaucrats who gladly do nothing all day every day, or even actively harm industry, and they can never be fired and exist as barnacles.
    - mochomocha 4y ago
      > They may exist for a while I don't think we should be interested in the "asymptotic theoretical limit" of capitalism which is never reached. Let's discuss "capitalism in practice", not "capitalism in theory". If things self-correct in a time frame longer than your own lifespan, do you think it's an ideal scenario? I personally don't. I don't see the government forcing Google to pay thousands of highly qualified workers to fill in BS jobs. This is a natural consequence of being a very successful business: complacency, empire building, etc all decorellated from economic incentives. People spend decades with BS jobs in a very capitalist society. Note that I've never argued that a socialist alternative is any better or that the government isn't filled with BS jobs either. I just observe that the problem manifests itself regardless.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > If things self-correct in a time frame longer than your own lifespan, do you think it's an ideal scenario? If there is not a better option, then yes.
- MatekCopatek 4y ago
  > no capitalist would pay for someone to do something useless The issue here is definition of useful/useless. If you manage to market regular rocks as magical and convince people to pay a lot of money for them, a capitalist will gladly pay for everything from digging to shipping of those rocks. From a common sense perspective that activity is useless because it's purely wasting resources with no useful effect. From a capitalist perspective the activity is not useless as it brings profit.
  - flappyeagle 4y ago
    It’s axiomatic. If someone is willing to pay then it’s by definition not useless. Pet rocks are fine as a luxury good. That’s what a wedding ring is.

pixl97 4y ago

Do more with less and less until you do everything with nothing.... The answer to your question is it depends, and is one of the big things that has people worried about AI and automation rapidly improving over time. If things like wealth redistribution don't occur in a highly automated society you end up with big problems really quick.

throwaway290 4y ago
It occurs, just not in the direction it should.
usrusr 4y ago
And even then economy would not be completely "done", as long as ownership of all that nothing that does everything is still distributed. But when that chapter is also over, imagine the succession drama!

bhargav 4y ago

“Better for society” sounds like an overstatement. I think you mean better for Shopify or their investors. Are you excluding those 20% MFs that are getting fired from Society? Where are they gonna do their scissoring now?

monero-xmr 4y ago
You are falling into the trap of the Luddites. As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them. Otherwise why not pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again, forever?
- throwaway290 4y ago
  straw man analogy. yes, if your end goal is something crazy and unthinkable like functional society with less crime and full of happy, mentally healthy non stressed people. only then keeping people employed even if in some cases it is not the most ruthlessly financially effective thing to do can be desirable
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bhargav 4y ago
  Not saying downsizing does not make sense, but its a stretch to say that its a service to our society to downsize one's company. > As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them This more sounds like a trap mindset to me to be honest. Its associating some sort of morality to what is just regular part of running a business. Companies do what's best for the company and its investors first and foremost.
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    The conceit that there exists human actions that are exempt from “morality” is fundamentally depraved.

dboreham 4y ago

Fewer.

hotpotamus 4y ago

> that’s better for society Increasingly I wonder what this means. What KPIs are you evaluating to determine if society is getting better or worse? And is it?

osigurdson 4y ago
Economic growth would certainly suffer if we insisted that no one could ever be let go.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  In context, I understand that you mean let go from jobs, but it doesn't seem like we have much trouble letting people go from society either.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    What does it mean to let people go from society?
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      As an example, I'd look at the individual who was strangled to death on the New York subway on Monday.

orra 4y ago

> I can pay hundreds of people to mow my lawn using scissors, and they will be employed as landscapers. Or I can pay one guy with a lawnmower. Right, but that's not the actual dichotomy. First, if Shopify can deliver its software with less people, then with the same number of people they could deliver more. Second, realistically the dichotomy, in the short to medium term, is will these people be employed in a skilled job, or will they be unemployed? You might say, that's not Shopify's problem. But let's not pretend unemployed people is "better for society".

endisneigh 4y ago
the unemployment rate is 3.5% > then with the same number of people they could deliver more. this is not true to begin with. classic engineering fallacy
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > this is not true to begin with. classic engineering fallacy Are you assuming they'd be put onto the existing projects (which may slow down delivery, yes) rather than doing new projects in parallel (which will not and will in fact let them deliver more because there are more projects)?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    you're simply doubling down on the fallacy. doing more projects does not mean you're delivering more. code is not value. there needs to be clear demand for what is being produced and management needs to have effective leadership to make sure the right people are doing the right things. all of which require effort. in lieu of that, it's better to lay people off from the company's perspective. if and when they understand the scope of the problem and the demand is there they will hire more people. that's more or less how to economy works.
monero-xmr 4y ago
You are assuming that there is an infinite number of people that can be added to Shopify’s payroll that will increase the product’s usefulness and increase revenue enough to justify their hiring. The company leadership doesn’t believe that. There is a line where adding more people will not justify enough revenue increase, and that’s up to the company leaders to decide. It’s worse for the people laid off, but ultimately wouldn’t they want to do something useful? In a new job they will be wanted. At Shopify they are not wanted.

megablast 4y ago

> I can pay hundreds of people to mow my lawn using scissors, and they will be employed as landscapers. Or I can pay one guy with a lawnmower. When you argument is to take the extreme, you must understand that it is bullshit, right?

monero-xmr 4y ago
On the contrary it is useful to distill an idea into its essence in order to make a point. This is a logical argument, and is the same technique any teacher uses when trying to begin with base principles. It’s tough when you have no counter argument, which is why you resort to arguing against the method rather than thinking of something intelligent.

musingsole 4y ago

Landscaping is a perfect example of how an individual can instantaneously create value in the economy. Banks can create currency, but individuals can magically create value. How? Decide you want your yard to look different. On a whim. Just decide you want a hill over there with a ring of bushes on top. Congratulations, you have created demand. Pay a local crew to have it done, money flows into the economy, everybody eats. For greater effect, manufacture a cultural preference so that entire country clubs of people at a time decide that all hills need bonzai trees at their crest -- have all the clubbers pay all the landscaping crews. A golf course is just a jobs program /s

AndrewKemendo 4y ago

>If Shopify can deliver its software with less people, that’s better for society. What specific measures of society are better? Please use whatever metrics you deem relevant however I'll propose a few options to choose from based on the Harvard Human Flourishing Program [1]: 1. Happiness and life satisfaction 2. Mental and physical health 3. Meaning and purpose 4. Character and virtue 5. Close social relationships [1] https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/measuring-flourishing https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/measuring-flourishing

usrusr 4y ago

Actually the good path, according to abovementioned prophets of capitalism, would be a new player undercutting the incumbent by being able to deliver comparably with less people. An incumbent so unchallenged that they can increase revenue while cutting staff is the economic equivalent of a bad code smell. Perhaps not that market outright failing, but clearly not working quite as advertised.

overrun11 4y ago

Hiring 100 people then getting rid of 99 of them is probably worse for society then just hiring the 1

ROTMetro 4y ago

A restaurant can get away with giving everyone crappy part time work IF the restaurant knows that on demand it can request people to work more hours/extra days. It sounds like an efficient way to run in a grad school sense. But what happens when people start saying no or get sick? The restaurant is closed at odd times, people are inconvenienced and just start going somewhere else, has opportunity costs because it has to pass on that last minute phone in order from an office catering lunch because it's minimally staffed (to be market efficient). Cutting to absolute minimum viable is a horrific concept if you are building a business. You lose your best people, you have a ton of opportunity costs, and you basically give up on growth, productivity goes down as your remaining people have to do way more context switching. If you are running a zombie company and just squeezing the last bits out it might be considered running a business I guess?