3 ms·

Can you eat a computer? Will it treat your hernia? No. You need a job that gives you money for those things, and not everyone can hack it as a programmer.

by zasz 15y ago

ekianjo 15y ago
I am using computers as an example of how productivity gains benefit everyone. I was replying to the claim that productivity gains only enrich the investors, which is patently false. I was not talking about jobs at all. My point is that the whole planet (as a whole) is getting richer, whether you realize it or not.
- marshray 15y ago
  PCs dropping from $10000 to $300 are not representative of almost anything about the last 30 years. Holding up PC prices or CPU speeds as an example of general economics is particularly contrived.
  - jcrites 15y ago
    He did not say that the drop in the price of PCs was representative. He (successfully, I think) provided an example showing that a gain to productivity benefited everyone, not just the holders of investments. What is an example of an industry where gains to productivity don't benefit everyone? Gains to productivity in farming enable the price of food to drop. Gains to productivity in housing enable the price of housing to drop. How does it only benefit the rich? Even if the price does not drop directly as a first-order effect (such as if the company whose productivity is boosted keeps the difference as a profit), it will eventually through market pressure; a new price equilibrium will be established. In perfectly competitive market (such as food) a competitor will use the productivity boost to lower costs and undercut the first. The resulting competition will lower the market place. Productivity gains lower prices (real prices), benefiting everyone.
    - marshray 15y ago
      I'm trying to be careful not to argue that "gains to productivity don't benefit everyone". My personal feeling is that probably sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, but I haven't researched it enough to back that up. Mainly I think discussions of any squishy data set carry a lot more weight once we throw out some outliers and general purpose computers are a definite outlier. Food production in the US is one of the most heavily subsidized (i.e., artificially manipulated) sections of the economy.
- zasz 15y ago
  Okay. Suppose I am a secretary, but my job has now been automated out of existence by Microsoft Excel. I have a $300 computer to browse Hacker News with, but no job. How did I benefit? Unless I have steadier access to food, shelter, healthcare, and a safe society, I don't think it should count as a productivity gain or increase in standard of living.
kamaal 15y ago
Hmmm, You tie money with a definition of a modern 'job'. The way I see people used eat, get cured of disease and live how we live today. Without the traditional definition of a job as we know today. People will have to continue to work to make a living. But it may not necessarily be a job meant in the sense of working for large corporate etc.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Maro 15y ago
What you have to realize is that, while 30 years ago only the rich could afford computers, now the poor can afford the exact same one. In fact, the field has leveled so much, that the rich can't get more bang for their buck. I spent $2,500 on a maxed out MBA, but my super rich friend can't spend $25,000 or $250,000 to get something better. Same goes for iPads, iPods, iPhones, anything in technology. Another example is Gmail. It's free, and arguably it's the best there is. Rich businessman are stuck in email for most of the day, but they can't do better what I get for free in Gmail. (In fact, they're probably using suckier corporate email.) It's not food, it's not medicine, but this phenomenon is still pretty notable if you ask me.

Can you eat a computer? Will it treat your hernia? No. You need a job that gives you money for those things, and not everyone can hack it as a programmer.

by zasz 15y ago

Can you eat a computer? Will it treat your hernia? No. You need a job that gives you money for those things, and not everyone can hack it as a programmer.

ekianjo 15y ago

I am using computers as an example of how productivity gains benefit everyone. I was replying to the claim that productivity gains only enrich the investors, which is patently false. I was not talking about jobs at all. My point is that the whole planet (as a whole) is getting richer, whether you realize it or not.

marshray 15y ago
PCs dropping from $10000 to $300 are not representative of almost anything about the last 30 years. Holding up PC prices or CPU speeds as an example of general economics is particularly contrived.
- jcrites 15y ago
  He did not say that the drop in the price of PCs was representative. He (successfully, I think) provided an example showing that a gain to productivity benefited everyone, not just the holders of investments. What is an example of an industry where gains to productivity don't benefit everyone? Gains to productivity in farming enable the price of food to drop. Gains to productivity in housing enable the price of housing to drop. How does it only benefit the rich? Even if the price does not drop directly as a first-order effect (such as if the company whose productivity is boosted keeps the difference as a profit), it will eventually through market pressure; a new price equilibrium will be established. In perfectly competitive market (such as food) a competitor will use the productivity boost to lower costs and undercut the first. The resulting competition will lower the market place. Productivity gains lower prices (real prices), benefiting everyone.
  - marshray 15y ago
    I'm trying to be careful not to argue that "gains to productivity don't benefit everyone". My personal feeling is that probably sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, but I haven't researched it enough to back that up. Mainly I think discussions of any squishy data set carry a lot more weight once we throw out some outliers and general purpose computers are a definite outlier. Food production in the US is one of the most heavily subsidized (i.e., artificially manipulated) sections of the economy.
zasz 15y ago
Okay. Suppose I am a secretary, but my job has now been automated out of existence by Microsoft Excel. I have a $300 computer to browse Hacker News with, but no job. How did I benefit? Unless I have steadier access to food, shelter, healthcare, and a safe society, I don't think it should count as a productivity gain or increase in standard of living.

kamaal 15y ago

Hmmm, You tie money with a definition of a modern 'job'. The way I see people used eat, get cured of disease and live how we live today. Without the traditional definition of a job as we know today. People will have to continue to work to make a living. But it may not necessarily be a job meant in the sense of working for large corporate etc.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Maro 15y ago

What you have to realize is that, while 30 years ago only the rich could afford computers, now the poor can afford the exact same one. In fact, the field has leveled so much, that the rich can't get more bang for their buck. I spent $2,500 on a maxed out MBA, but my super rich friend can't spend $25,000 or $250,000 to get something better. Same goes for iPads, iPods, iPhones, anything in technology. Another example is Gmail. It's free, and arguably it's the best there is. Rich businessman are stuck in email for most of the day, but they can't do better what I get for free in Gmail. (In fact, they're probably using suckier corporate email.) It's not food, it's not medicine, but this phenomenon is still pretty notable if you ask me.