5 ms·

So many copying monks screaming that the printing press will ruin books forever

lm28469 1y ago
"something vaguely comparable happened in completely different settings and wasn't bad in the end, hence we should accept everything new as 100% positive and never question anything ever again" I never understood that argument.
- missedthecue 1y ago
  Well it's not 'vaguely comparable'. The core point is that technology does not decrease demand for labor (i.e. jobs or wages) because new technology makes things possible that were not possible before. The direct result is that the breadth of human activity increases, and so does demand for labor. The textbook example of this is that 200 years ago, 96% of the population worked in agriculture and now only 4% of the population does. But that does NOT mean the balance are unemployed! More people are employed today globally than ever before in history. It's a very common mistake to imagine the world has only a fixed number of jobs to go around. Anti immigration arguments and anti technology arguments both use this as the fulcrum of their argument but it's simply a faulty assumption.
  - lm28469 1y ago
    Why are people pushed into more and more precarious and low paid jobs then? We have more technology than ever before yet it seems like job quality and stability peaked some time ago. Why is the retirement age growing? Why is the gape between wages and productivity increasing? > The textbook example of this is that 300 years ago, 96% of the population worked in agriculture and now only 4% of the population does. But that does mean the balance are unemployed! Oh no imagine the horrors of growing your own food and owning your own means of production, I'm shivering at the thought of it... Meanwhile we have millions of slaves driving Uber or delivering burgers, billions stuck in jobs with absolutely no meaning, billions working in industries actively harming the planet, &c.
    - nasmorn 1y ago
      One of the most interesting books I have read is Franz Innerhofers Schöne Tage which describes his experience on a farm in Austria in the second half of the 20th century. The experiences of farm hands and maids was absolutely horrifying and each one would take a soul less office job at Dunder Mifflin or an Uber Eats route without question. People were basically property even in society without slavery. The US 19th century is really a special case because the land was all recently stolen from the native Americans who mostly died of diseases. So those people that colonized the land had an unknown amount of freedom because that only existed for a short time in history and even they were lacking any access to medical services or real education. What’s not seeing half your children dying worth to you?
      - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
        To your last question, zero, because no one has children anymore because of the present. The past can be interesting, but is not a direct substation for actual discussion in the present. I mean in this one thread supposedly about the impact of capital itself now being able to create labour, instead of paying for labor, something that has never happened in history we have such depth on the topic at hand as: 'In the past everything perfectly just magically worked out so it will magically work out now and magic new jobs will appear because jobs appeared in the past' 'The past was horrific, you should be grateful for any current job and ignore you are getting poorer' 'The past was an special one off time in history, you can't expect that now' 'Medicine didn't exist in the past. Think about the children' Zero depth of discussion but a shit load of handwaving away actual discussion.
    - missedthecue 1y ago
      "We have more technology than ever before yet it seems like job quality and stability peaked some time ago. Why is the retirement age growing? Why is the gape between wages and productivity increasing?" - Your first statement is some sort of nostalgia or rose colored glasses. We have hard data on this. Globally speaking, but also in America specifically, people work fewer hours for higher inflation-adjusted pay than they did 20, 50, or 100 years ago. My grandfather was born in 1926, had the exact same educational attainment as me (although he attended a much more prestigious university), and I earn more and work less than he did. I have more vacation days. I have a higher savings rate. - To your second question, the retirement age is increasing because our demographic pyramid around the world is inverting. This a function of birth rates being below replacement for too long. It's just math. Too many old people and not enough young people. But to my previous point, the ability to plan your family like this and have fewer kids is also a result of increased wealth and opportunity (to do things other than raise children). - Lastly, the gap between wages and productivity is increasing because wages are only indirectly a result of productivity. They are directly a result of demand for labor against the supply available. Increased productivity allows companies to have the resources to bid more, (hence why some comparable role like middle management in a tech firm pays a lot more than middle management at a grocery retailer). But I don't view this as a problem. As long as the tide is generally rising, and it is as my first paragraph explained, no one is hurt by a gap increasing. It's not a zero sum game where a winner implies a loser. But also, increased productivity results in lower prices, which is equivalent to getting a raise. The classic example are things like electronics, movies, music, travel, and food which have gotten much cheaper than they used to be. In 1950, Americans spent an average of 21% of their incomes on food. In 2025, that number is 10%. That's the equivalent of raise in that one can pay for necessities and have more spending power left over. Interestingly, the areas people complain about are mostly housing, education, and healthcare. These are three sectors that have seen zero to negative productivity increases over the past few decades. Yes, the construction sector in America is less productive than it was in 1990 per man hour of labor, and higher education is a total wreck in terms of productivity. Places like Stanford now have more administrators than students.
martin-t 1y ago
Bad analogy. In the past, workers complained that automation took away their jobs. The (roughly) same amount of wealth was created but the income went to fewer individuals (the owners). This was a valid criticism but at least they could move onto other jobs. AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete. Regardless if the amount of wealth created will be less, the same, or greater than before, the income will only go towards the owners and everyone else will become a beggar. That is the endgame. If you believe the endgame is different, please game it out in your head and share what you think. Don't just reject this idea without thinking about it. [0]: And even without robotics, true AI (AGI) would obliterate such a huge percentage of jobs it would create a shock and massive unemployment.
- adamauckland 1y ago
  Where's all this wealth going to come from if nobody has any jobs?
  - mangamadaiyan 1y ago
    Also, where's it going to _go_ to?
  - WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
    I guess we’re back to good ol’ slavery here. Wasn’t it Platonic ideal where everyone would own at least two slaves? Except that we’re all going to be slaves and richer slaves will have their own slaves, all the way down. And child labor! Don’t forget about child labor. Childhood is cancelled! Gotta learn how to slave right from the infancy.
- mcv 1y ago
  > AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete. I'm still skeptical that AI will be able to take our jobs anytime soon, but when it does, we really need to make sure that we have a different economic system; one that doesn't demand that people work in jobs that don't exist anymore. At the very least, we need to tax those companies enough to provide a Basic Income, so we can actually allow those companies to go through with it. But even then, capitalism might be a problem, because as the sole owners of all production capital, they will continue to gather more capital and power, without the people on BI having any say over it anymore. Eventually, AI will have to be used to support people instead of corporations, and I don't think that's possible in a highly capitalist economy. Get rid of the Friedman Doctrine at the very least.
sumtechguy 1y ago
I get what you are saying. But I am not sure that is happening. It has totally leveled up the people I am working with. They have a fairly decent expert they can bug all the time. The types of questions my jr people are bringing me now are no longer 'xyz doesnt compile right' to 'if I am using this pattern the crap doesnt come from the right place'. My mentoring has turned from basic trouble shooting to fairly higher level how to design things. How to really break something and tear it apart and put it back together. How to find that one inscrutable bug that is doing something weird. I am digging it.
- fvdessen 1y ago
  I agree with you but many programmers really enjoyed the fiddling with the lines of code and solving the puzzles more than actually building the thing and are not liking the changes. I saw it as a means to an end (which I enjoyed getting good at!) and I am loving the change.

"something vaguely comparable happened in completely different settings and wasn't bad in the end, hence we should accept everything new as 100% positive and never question anything ever again" I never understood that argument.

missedthecue 1y ago
Well it's not 'vaguely comparable'. The core point is that technology does not decrease demand for labor (i.e. jobs or wages) because new technology makes things possible that were not possible before. The direct result is that the breadth of human activity increases, and so does demand for labor. The textbook example of this is that 200 years ago, 96% of the population worked in agriculture and now only 4% of the population does. But that does NOT mean the balance are unemployed! More people are employed today globally than ever before in history. It's a very common mistake to imagine the world has only a fixed number of jobs to go around. Anti immigration arguments and anti technology arguments both use this as the fulcrum of their argument but it's simply a faulty assumption.
- lm28469 1y ago
  Why are people pushed into more and more precarious and low paid jobs then? We have more technology than ever before yet it seems like job quality and stability peaked some time ago. Why is the retirement age growing? Why is the gape between wages and productivity increasing? > The textbook example of this is that 300 years ago, 96% of the population worked in agriculture and now only 4% of the population does. But that does mean the balance are unemployed! Oh no imagine the horrors of growing your own food and owning your own means of production, I'm shivering at the thought of it... Meanwhile we have millions of slaves driving Uber or delivering burgers, billions stuck in jobs with absolutely no meaning, billions working in industries actively harming the planet, &c.
  - nasmorn 1y ago
    One of the most interesting books I have read is Franz Innerhofers Schöne Tage which describes his experience on a farm in Austria in the second half of the 20th century. The experiences of farm hands and maids was absolutely horrifying and each one would take a soul less office job at Dunder Mifflin or an Uber Eats route without question. People were basically property even in society without slavery. The US 19th century is really a special case because the land was all recently stolen from the native Americans who mostly died of diseases. So those people that colonized the land had an unknown amount of freedom because that only existed for a short time in history and even they were lacking any access to medical services or real education. What’s not seeing half your children dying worth to you?
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      To your last question, zero, because no one has children anymore because of the present. The past can be interesting, but is not a direct substation for actual discussion in the present. I mean in this one thread supposedly about the impact of capital itself now being able to create labour, instead of paying for labor, something that has never happened in history we have such depth on the topic at hand as: 'In the past everything perfectly just magically worked out so it will magically work out now and magic new jobs will appear because jobs appeared in the past' 'The past was horrific, you should be grateful for any current job and ignore you are getting poorer' 'The past was an special one off time in history, you can't expect that now' 'Medicine didn't exist in the past. Think about the children' Zero depth of discussion but a shit load of handwaving away actual discussion.
  - missedthecue 1y ago
    "We have more technology than ever before yet it seems like job quality and stability peaked some time ago. Why is the retirement age growing? Why is the gape between wages and productivity increasing?" - Your first statement is some sort of nostalgia or rose colored glasses. We have hard data on this. Globally speaking, but also in America specifically, people work fewer hours for higher inflation-adjusted pay than they did 20, 50, or 100 years ago. My grandfather was born in 1926, had the exact same educational attainment as me (although he attended a much more prestigious university), and I earn more and work less than he did. I have more vacation days. I have a higher savings rate. - To your second question, the retirement age is increasing because our demographic pyramid around the world is inverting. This a function of birth rates being below replacement for too long. It's just math. Too many old people and not enough young people. But to my previous point, the ability to plan your family like this and have fewer kids is also a result of increased wealth and opportunity (to do things other than raise children). - Lastly, the gap between wages and productivity is increasing because wages are only indirectly a result of productivity. They are directly a result of demand for labor against the supply available. Increased productivity allows companies to have the resources to bid more, (hence why some comparable role like middle management in a tech firm pays a lot more than middle management at a grocery retailer). But I don't view this as a problem. As long as the tide is generally rising, and it is as my first paragraph explained, no one is hurt by a gap increasing. It's not a zero sum game where a winner implies a loser. But also, increased productivity results in lower prices, which is equivalent to getting a raise. The classic example are things like electronics, movies, music, travel, and food which have gotten much cheaper than they used to be. In 1950, Americans spent an average of 21% of their incomes on food. In 2025, that number is 10%. That's the equivalent of raise in that one can pay for necessities and have more spending power left over. Interestingly, the areas people complain about are mostly housing, education, and healthcare. These are three sectors that have seen zero to negative productivity increases over the past few decades. Yes, the construction sector in America is less productive than it was in 1990 per man hour of labor, and higher education is a total wreck in terms of productivity. Places like Stanford now have more administrators than students.

martin-t 1y ago

Bad analogy. In the past, workers complained that automation took away their jobs. The (roughly) same amount of wealth was created but the income went to fewer individuals (the owners). This was a valid criticism but at least they could move onto other jobs. AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete. Regardless if the amount of wealth created will be less, the same, or greater than before, the income will only go towards the owners and everyone else will become a beggar. That is the endgame. If you believe the endgame is different, please game it out in your head and share what you think. Don't just reject this idea without thinking about it. [0]: And even without robotics, true AI (AGI) would obliterate such a huge percentage of jobs it would create a shock and massive unemployment.

adamauckland 1y ago
Where's all this wealth going to come from if nobody has any jobs?
- mangamadaiyan 1y ago
  Also, where's it going to _go_ to?
- WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
  I guess we’re back to good ol’ slavery here. Wasn’t it Platonic ideal where everyone would own at least two slaves? Except that we’re all going to be slaves and richer slaves will have their own slaves, all the way down. And child labor! Don’t forget about child labor. Childhood is cancelled! Gotta learn how to slave right from the infancy.
mcv 1y ago
> AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete. I'm still skeptical that AI will be able to take our jobs anytime soon, but when it does, we really need to make sure that we have a different economic system; one that doesn't demand that people work in jobs that don't exist anymore. At the very least, we need to tax those companies enough to provide a Basic Income, so we can actually allow those companies to go through with it. But even then, capitalism might be a problem, because as the sole owners of all production capital, they will continue to gather more capital and power, without the people on BI having any say over it anymore. Eventually, AI will have to be used to support people instead of corporations, and I don't think that's possible in a highly capitalist economy. Get rid of the Friedman Doctrine at the very least.

sumtechguy 1y ago

I get what you are saying. But I am not sure that is happening. It has totally leveled up the people I am working with. They have a fairly decent expert they can bug all the time. The types of questions my jr people are bringing me now are no longer 'xyz doesnt compile right' to 'if I am using this pattern the crap doesnt come from the right place'. My mentoring has turned from basic trouble shooting to fairly higher level how to design things. How to really break something and tear it apart and put it back together. How to find that one inscrutable bug that is doing something weird. I am digging it.

fvdessen 1y ago
I agree with you but many programmers really enjoyed the fiddling with the lines of code and solving the puzzles more than actually building the thing and are not liking the changes. I saw it as a means to an end (which I enjoyed getting good at!) and I am loving the change.