3 ms·

It's funny how the "equality" thing can depend on various notions - including assumptions. Unless we are talking about unconditional equality (i.e. same for ev

by guylhem 13y ago

It's funny how the "equality" thing can depend on various notions - including assumptions. Unless we are talking about unconditional equality (i.e. same for everyone including slackers), what about an equality based on how productive people are? It's called marginal productivity ethics, and following that theory our current society is very unequal, and the society envisioned by the articled (the so called "hyper meritocracy") is much more equal. "In the aftermath of the marginal revolution in economics, a number of economists including John Bates Clark and Thomas Nixon Carver sought to derive an ethical theory of income distribution based on the idea that workers were morally entitled to receive a wage exactly equal to their marginal product" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product_of_labor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product_of_labor) If anything, computers put an emphasis on the fact that waking up everyday and showing up for "work" with the only qualification of having a pulse is not sufficient anymore to command a salary, especially when machines can replace the worker for a fraction of the cost (and do a much better job) Things change. I for one will not lament on the fact that our society is becoming so productive and efficient that (gasp!) some people also have to become more efficient!!

jiggy2011 13y ago
I think it's partly that technology can multiply the differences in marginal productivity between people. For example it's a common meme on HN to talk about "10X" or "100X" programmers. If such things are true then it probably makes sense for 100X programmers to be paid 100X more. The difference between a 1X and 10X programmer however may only be marginal in terms of actual intelligence etc. Therefor if we assume a 10X programmer gets $100,000 , a 100X programmer get $1M and a 1X programmer gets $10,000 which is not going to be a living wage if one has a family. So one needs to be at least say a 3X programmer to earn a living wage. But maybe there is no such thing as a 3X programmer, only 1X , 10X and 100X.
- nagrom 13y ago
  There's also the fact that if a 1x programmer gets forced out the market, the 10x programmers become 1x programmers (by the definition of a 1x programmer) and the 100x programmers become 10x programmers...
  - countrybama24 13y ago
    Bingo. Everyone is replaceable over a long enough timeframe.
- FLUX-YOU 13y ago
  I think part of the 1X-10X-100X thing comes from knowledge acquired. It's really difficult to nail down what the industry values more: depth or breadth of knowledge, but I'm pretty sure there are jobs for both. To me, a 10x has always been someone who's studied a ton of material and has solved a lot of problems. It'd be a bit strange if you couldn't be 10 times as productive as a junior guy if you had depth and breadth knowledge of, say, an entire web stack. If technology gets to the point where it's a very large multiplier, then the human involved would basically be a constant in the face of a large value and multiplier -- almost irrelevant. That might mean that hiring can disregard any requirements (which would be nice for some of us!), but I think that's going to be a far cry since the industry seems to be going in the opposite direction (more languages/projects/knowledge required for an entry level position than 10 years prior)

by guylhem 13y ago

jiggy2011 13y ago

I think it's partly that technology can multiply the differences in marginal productivity between people. For example it's a common meme on HN to talk about "10X" or "100X" programmers. If such things are true then it probably makes sense for 100X programmers to be paid 100X more. The difference between a 1X and 10X programmer however may only be marginal in terms of actual intelligence etc. Therefor if we assume a 10X programmer gets $100,000 , a 100X programmer get $1M and a 1X programmer gets $10,000 which is not going to be a living wage if one has a family. So one needs to be at least say a 3X programmer to earn a living wage. But maybe there is no such thing as a 3X programmer, only 1X , 10X and 100X.

nagrom 13y ago
There's also the fact that if a 1x programmer gets forced out the market, the 10x programmers become 1x programmers (by the definition of a 1x programmer) and the 100x programmers become 10x programmers...
- countrybama24 13y ago
  Bingo. Everyone is replaceable over a long enough timeframe.
FLUX-YOU 13y ago
I think part of the 1X-10X-100X thing comes from knowledge acquired. It's really difficult to nail down what the industry values more: depth or breadth of knowledge, but I'm pretty sure there are jobs for both. To me, a 10x has always been someone who's studied a ton of material and has solved a lot of problems. It'd be a bit strange if you couldn't be 10 times as productive as a junior guy if you had depth and breadth knowledge of, say, an entire web stack. If technology gets to the point where it's a very large multiplier, then the human involved would basically be a constant in the face of a large value and multiplier -- almost irrelevant. That might mean that hiring can disregard any requirements (which would be nice for some of us!), but I think that's going to be a far cry since the industry seems to be going in the opposite direction (more languages/projects/knowledge required for an entry level position than 10 years prior)