5 ms·

> and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? A few issues to consider: 1. Many companies can continue to operate for a time pu

> and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? A few issues to consider: 1. Many companies can continue to operate for a time purely based on momentum and existing pipelines. That does not mean that this is sustainable. 2. The lack of a visible dip does not mean the internals are healthy. Often layoffs are accompanied with an expectation to "do more with less", which generally means the conditions going south for remaining workers. 3. In an economy that is predicated on everyone having a job or enough income to spend money to support the continued existence of companies, it is not sufficient to look only at the output of the company itself. Bullshit jobs may be a real thing, but much of the system is built on "bullshit", all in service of perpetuating the ongoing success of the system. If every company could automate every function and there were no employees anywhere, this would obviously not be sustainable in the long run, and it becomes more apparent that the role of the worker is not just about the company's output, and is intrinsic to the whole system, and that's something we'll have to contend with eventually. I'm not arguing that this is a good thing, or that companies should keep people for no reason, but we're in an era where technology is increasingly disrupting core aspects of the system.

pdonis 3y ago
> If every company could automate every function and there were no employees anywhere, this would obviously not be sustainable in the long run Perhaps not, but I'm not sure it would be for the reason you are implying. What is this hypothetical company that automates every function and has no employess anywhere producing? And what price can that thing fetch in the market? If the marginal cost of producing additional units is basically zero, which is what the hypothetical implies, then the products should be basically free, since standard microeconomics says that price = marginal cost. Which means nobody would need jobs to afford these products. Which means this condition would be sustainable in the hypothetical as you state it: sure, there would be no employees, but there would also be no need for the jobs that no longer exist. Of course in the real world there are plenty of ways this could go sideways, but they all basically boil down to: in the real world, governments mess with markets in ways that prevent price from being driven down to marginal cost. That means many things (food, for example) cost more than they should, which means people need more income than they should need if the market were truly free. So what is really not sustainable is governments trying to mess with markets. If that stopped, we could make the necessities of life basically free. That would be a good use of technology.
- haswell 3y ago
  My point about a lack of sustainability wasn't assigning that issue to companies alone, but broadly to the system as it currently exists and in which those companies operate. > If the marginal cost of producing additional units is basically zero, which is what the hypothetical implies, then the products should be basically free I don't think this is implied unless all productive work across all industries is automated. Practically speaking, this would happen over time, meaning that a fully automated company today could significantly reduce its costs, but would still have to purchase goods and services from upstream providers and pay to market and distribute their products. And since companies essentially operate on greed, the leadership of these companies would carve out space for themselves, and the short term goal would almost certainly still be to maximize profit, meaning goods are not free, even if the marginal cost is low (gotta pay for all of that automation R&D after all). Somewhere there is a tipping point where enough automation would throw the system into chaos without major changes. If it could be achieved overnight, then hypothetically we could all have free stuff.
ryandrake 3y ago
> 2. The lack of a visible dip does not mean the internals are healthy. Often layoffs are accompanied with an expectation to "do more with less", which generally means the conditions going south for remaining workers. I've always wondered: If the layoff is happening because the company over-hired and the roles are no longer needed, then why do existing employees need to step up and do those roles that the company just said are no longer needed?
- haswell 3y ago
  Highly depends on the company and how they select the people to be laid off, but the issue can be that the layoff targets some % of over-hiring, and some teams are effected more than others depending on the makeup of those teams, project load, etc. Some teams are disproportionately impacted.

pdonis 3y ago

> If every company could automate every function and there were no employees anywhere, this would obviously not be sustainable in the long run Perhaps not, but I'm not sure it would be for the reason you are implying. What is this hypothetical company that automates every function and has no employess anywhere producing? And what price can that thing fetch in the market? If the marginal cost of producing additional units is basically zero, which is what the hypothetical implies, then the products should be basically free, since standard microeconomics says that price = marginal cost. Which means nobody would need jobs to afford these products. Which means this condition would be sustainable in the hypothetical as you state it: sure, there would be no employees, but there would also be no need for the jobs that no longer exist. Of course in the real world there are plenty of ways this could go sideways, but they all basically boil down to: in the real world, governments mess with markets in ways that prevent price from being driven down to marginal cost. That means many things (food, for example) cost more than they should, which means people need more income than they should need if the market were truly free. So what is really not sustainable is governments trying to mess with markets. If that stopped, we could make the necessities of life basically free. That would be a good use of technology.

haswell 3y ago
My point about a lack of sustainability wasn't assigning that issue to companies alone, but broadly to the system as it currently exists and in which those companies operate. > If the marginal cost of producing additional units is basically zero, which is what the hypothetical implies, then the products should be basically free I don't think this is implied unless all productive work across all industries is automated. Practically speaking, this would happen over time, meaning that a fully automated company today could significantly reduce its costs, but would still have to purchase goods and services from upstream providers and pay to market and distribute their products. And since companies essentially operate on greed, the leadership of these companies would carve out space for themselves, and the short term goal would almost certainly still be to maximize profit, meaning goods are not free, even if the marginal cost is low (gotta pay for all of that automation R&D after all). Somewhere there is a tipping point where enough automation would throw the system into chaos without major changes. If it could be achieved overnight, then hypothetically we could all have free stuff.

ryandrake 3y ago

> 2. The lack of a visible dip does not mean the internals are healthy. Often layoffs are accompanied with an expectation to "do more with less", which generally means the conditions going south for remaining workers. I've always wondered: If the layoff is happening because the company over-hired and the roles are no longer needed, then why do existing employees need to step up and do those roles that the company just said are no longer needed?

haswell 3y ago
Highly depends on the company and how they select the people to be laid off, but the issue can be that the layoff targets some % of over-hiring, and some teams are effected more than others depending on the makeup of those teams, project load, etc. Some teams are disproportionately impacted.