You know why we create software? To automate things, stuff that before required lot of accountants can be now down with software + one accountant. So we made accounting "cheaper" cutting a lot of jobs; should we stop making software because it makes labor cheaper? should we stop making robots because it makes labor cheaper? Fuck that; if socio-economics has a problem we need to find a solution that doesn't involve stopping how far and wide knowledge can be spread.

I got into a discussion about this recently. It seems like most of the time new technology and automation inherently creates less jobs than it depreciates.

Meanwhile, the population only goes up.

Assuming those two statements are true in a given economy, then this is going to become a major problem for society as the number of people drastically outmatches the number of (skilled?) jobs that need performed.

At a certain point we're going to have to find a new paradigm to replace our "compete for a job and you can earn a living" system or else find ourselves in a situation where the employer has all the power and the vast majority of people who can even find work endure terrible conditions.

> I got into a discussion about this recently. It seems like most of the time new technology and automation inherently creates less jobs than it depreciates.

> Meanwhile, the population only goes up.

That's why one should consider people who produce children as "evil-minded". There are few things that are similar as cruel as producing children who will have no place in society. Antinatalism for the win.

Sort of.

On the other hand, on a national or global scale having children is not optional.

If you want your species to continue, some people have to have children.

That said, I agree in that I believe contraception should be essentially free to anyone who wants it. There's simply no logical reason for society to bring unwanted and superfluous children into the world.

> If you want your species to continue, some people have to have children.

But only as many as society really needs (currently we have to many) and and only if there exist people that are willing to bail if the child will be unemployed (a risk that will increase with even more automatization).

Without children the human species will simply die. If that's your goal or an accepted side-effect of your goal, then Antinatalism makes sense.

If you don't want humanity to die, then it is far too simplistic and it would actually be wrong to not value people having children -- at least to some degree -- since as far as we know it is the only way for humanity to continue.

In reality, as with most things, there is a lot of grey area and difference of circumstance that factor into the morality of such a decision.

"Disrupting" is maybe the most popular reason for creating software. It is not the only reason though. There are others. Like enabling people to do/experience things that weren't possible before.

The solution clearly isn't to stop making software but the solution also isn't to immediately replace all jobs by a machine. You have people who've worked towards a specialized skillet for most part of their life only to realize that this skill isn't needed anymore. In such situations, we need to come up with mechanisms to help people transition.

What are you trying to say? You want education to be less accessible, so that poor people cannot compete with you?

Computer science is like a self-devaluating industry.

We have tons of websites dedicated to teaching our trade, most of them for free. We actively encourage everybody to learn to code, and tell them how easy it is, and how it makes you a better person. We say schools should teach everybody how to code.

Do you imagine medics, attorneys, engineers, etc doing the same things about their own professions/skills? "Yes I'm an architect... yeah but you should learn the same skillset, this thing I do is super easy! Everybody could be an architect easily!"

Of course corporations like this: more coders! Cheaper labour! For example I found this video disgusting while everybody else applauded the effort:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc

Do you really think your (our) skillset is worth 0?

What I'm getting from your post is: When you teach other people, you devalue your own knowledge. Knowledge should be hoarded, guarded jealously, and others discouraged from learning the things you know. Because if knowledge is shared, that knowledge becomes less valuable, and so you are less valuable, and so can earn less money.

Is this a fair statement of your views, or am I misinterpreting you?

I didn't interpret his post the same way as you did. I think he was suggesting that we, as programmers, tend to act in ways that are not necessarily conducive to maintaining our own job security. We often advocate (strongly even) for importing labor, making CS education and tools cheap/free etc. all of which while certainly making knowledge more accessible also increases the supply of coders.

And it's true, you definitely don't see doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. acting in the same way. I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy on their part, but the certifications (difficult to obtain), years of schooling etc do have the effect (intended or not) of limiting competition.

It's hard to argue for better wages and treatment from employers on one hand, while simultaneously propagating the view that "anyone can do this". Well, if anyone can, then why should you get paid $150k/yr or more?

From an individual & egoistical perspective, that is a very logical point of view.

I was wondering what their motivation is. Maybe this is it. It's so strange how so many programmers seem to want other people to learn to program. Why is this? I accepted a long time ago that probably less than 1% of the population have the ability to be a good programmer. And even if more had the ability, do we really need that many programmers?

I can't imagine any other industry doing this. I don't go on to the website of 3M, for example, and see stuff teaching me how to make my own glue. When I speak to a lawyer they don't try to teach me how to be a lawyer. Why do so many programmers feel the need to do this?

>Why is this?

Because they like what they do and sharing knowledge helps you learn and network. Go on youtube and look for tons of drawing tutorials, music creation, sculpting, etc. pretty much anything creative and accessible will have people who will give away knowledge for free, sharing what they discovered or w/e.

There's also selection bias, programmers create digital content so it's bound to be over-represented on the internet.

> Why is this?

Many of my hardest problems involve people in decision-making positions that don't have any idea about how computers or programs work. Getting the rest of the world to be more conversant in programming will allow for more meaningful work. For example, we know what an EKG and an APB are, but people don't know what a compiler is.

Programming is a very general skill that can be applied to almost anything and it has a low barrier to entry.

In the view of those promoting programming education it is a skill that everyone should have the opportunity to learn -- more akin to reading or writing than specialized skills like making glue or regulated subjects like law.

There is also a lot of room for creativity in programming, which means it probably has a higher chance of being adopted just for fun.

You can say the same thing about Calculus. "Why does nearly every single High School in the US teach Calculus in some form or another? Why do they push it on every child? Including in College for weeder courses?" Because it's critical, important and integral to our society. Now that programming has invaded nearly every aspect of our lives, wouldn't it be nice if we all taught everyone how to be programming literate? It would be like learning a language. Or learning Calculus.

I agree with you.

Here is my thoughts: spreading knowledge and making it accessible is not a bad thing, of course. But, isn't it true that the current education system (form k-12 to academia) is built to produce a workforce for the industry(2.0)? Here is a quote from a recent HN thread: "Our current system is designed to produce factory workers for the industrial economy, which was adapted to produce knowledge workers for the information economy. But we are moving towards full automation of most of those jobs.

We will need to prepare people to be adaptable in a fast changing automated world: more entrepreneurial type skills are needed." [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13533759]

Education for the sake of knowledge/science ended after Industry 2.0. Maybe that's why the world doesn't have great innovators & scientists and giant scientific leaps as got once until late 19th to early 20th century.

So, it's true that all the current frantic efforts (bootcamps, online degrees, nanodegrees etc.) to teach youth to code are about pouring easy-accessible workforce into the market - towards the final phase of Industry 3.0. After the Industry 4.0 is arrived, millions of workforce will be left out, IMO.

I'll reserve my right to applaud at the end of the show, even if the singer was just being excellent for the sake of a pay check.

In fact it's the opposite, they can get cheap labor - if the labor is ignorant - not with knowledge! Hypothesis failed!

While I don't agree with lineindc, they are clearly talking about unit costs or something else that measures price per productivity.