> Pirius said, "What do you mean, fakes?"

> "He's a parasite. He mimics the workers here. He runs around with data desks, he sleeps in their dormitory rooms, he eats their food. It's a common pattern in communities like this. The genuine clerks are busy with their own tasks -- and here, you aren't supposed to ask questions anyhow. So Tek gets away with it. He's just like a genuine clerk. Except that you don't do anything useful, do you, Tek?"

This is from an SF book from Baxter, characters went to a community of humans to gather information about something. The excerpt stayed on my mind because it relates to other questions (alienation, at what point is work still work if it's so far removed from the first objective (yak shaving), is someone creating its own useless workload a parasite, etc.).

what's the name of the book?

Here:

Exultant (novel) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exultant is a science fiction novel by British author Stephen Baxter. It is part two of the Destiny's Children series. The book was published by Victor Gollancz Ltd in September 2004. Overview Much of the book is written as large sections of prose explaining theoretical exotic-matter physics. Baxter also sketches the evolution of the Xeelee and an imaginary history of the universe in which life is ubiquitous even under the most extreme conditions.

I often wondered why doesn't everyone want to be a construction worker. We've all seen what they can do. Make huge structures appear out of thin air. Change the way space is. It's magic. And all the gadgets. Gigantic hydraulic arms, cranes, tractors of all sizes.

Instead we're paid heaps for programming. Which kind of makes sense. In my mind, programming is about making sense of a mess. Untangling all the seemingly conflicting wishes, concepts and circumstances into something simple. Programmers live off complexity the way insects live off a compost bin. Or, to be more romantic, the way a lotus flowers in dirty water. We recycle, break down and refine. Apparently, it has its place.

Because it's not as fun as a kid using building blocks. You'd just be doing a single job over and over again into monotony and it's filled with permits, inspections, waiting, etc so projects get dragged out and you don't get thr same gratification as you would if it were done faster and all parts done by you.

> Because it's not as fun as a kid using building blocks.

But is that the fault of the occupation or the occupee?

The occupation, as I explained in the rest of the comment. It's just not as stimulating.

I know you said that, I just disagree. I think it's in the person. You can reframe anything: air conditioning (horrible), sitting at a desk (oh no), your work not having any tangible results (get me out of here), being indoors all day (why is this happening to me).

This deeply resonates with me. I LOVE building things, I just happen to build things in my head instead of the real.

I've always described my job as taking a bunch of funny shaped pieces and artfully filling in the gaps so they connect in a cohesive manner. The thinking part is the artful and cohesive bit. Kinda like kintsugi but with made-up languages and scrums and PMs/DMs.

> I often wondered why doesn't everyone want to be a construction worker.

I don't like hard physical work. I don't like sweating. Much prefer to sit on my ass in front of a computer and pretend to work while i scroll endlessly through twitter.

Can you sit on anything without sitting on your ass?

Now I'm thinking about what 'sitting' actually means.

It's easy to look at those construction workers and think "Wow, those dudes have real jobs" because they get to build huge skyscrapers or subways.

But they're looking right back at you thinking the same exact thing, because you get to work on your laptop in an air conditioned office and don't go home smelling like sweat, dirt, and fumes.

There's a great quote from Bud Smith's book Work that has much better wording with the same idea, but I can't find it

Crane operators are actually one of the highest ranked professions in terms of job satisfaction.

I’m not surprised, it looks really fascinating. The view alone is probably often amazing, and imagining getting into a flow state while operating a crane seems like it would be amazing. I would assume you begin to embody the crane over time the way people do when they drive a lot, the feeling must be expansive. You probably feel quite powerful.

"Software is eating then world "

Companies need software to make profits, and so, at least for the moment, need people who can do that software. That raises prices.

Construction doesn't pay that well in most parts of the world.

> I often wondered why doesn't everyone want to be a construction worker.

I thought this was going to be a witty officespace reference.

We organize data so people can be more efficient with their time. We're not data-organizers, we're profit & time multipliers. Sometimes I wonder what % of HN are regular LOB engineers; I bet it's quite a bit.

Whenever anybody gets uppity about scale, I remind them that not only is our 'scale' limited to the physical growth of the company, our job can be summarized as shuffling data around in a database with some touchpoints for human interactions in the workflow so our coworkers can be more productive. Every. Single. Company. around the world could probably benefit for some automated data shuffling, and despite being rote, the multiplier effect on small businesses and local economies is an important second-order-affect of helping build 'boring' LOB software that just shuffles data.

Who pays for the interesting structures, ponds, waterfalls, and arenas? It ultimately always boils down to where does the money come from -- think of "data organising" as the circulatory system of an extremely complex, multi layered, and global economy. It's not the most efficient and a lot of people learn to live in the cracks getting paid for doing virtually nothing, but it's necessary if we want to continue to create.

Also: if people were interested in endless artificial ponds, waterfalls, and interesting structures, and there was any money to be made in it (vs the cost of building them), there would probably be a market for it. I suspect not many people are interested, and they'd rather protect what nature already has.

And even in protecting what nature already has, there is far less money to make, than in destroying it.

“the ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.” - David Graeber

I have similar thoughts. I basically make pixels change color all day long, and the effect of it is mostly that it changes the color of pixels on other peoples screens as well. Somehow that's valuable and while I understand why, it also seems deeply surreal at times.

Ultimately, you could abstract from any kind of computer work with such a general description. Another example: "Basically I am just pressing buttons all day and I am getting paid for it. shrugs"

Button button button, button button, click slide, button.

I observed a while ago that the more directly your work helps someone else, the less it tends to pay. I'm not sure what that says about our psychology, but I suspect it's something to do with shame/pride.

There's a lot of replies about how you're organizing data so others can do their jobs more efficiently, but that's a fairly romanticized view of tech work. I get where you're coming from.

How do you think the other people can a) build houses, grow, and prepare food effectively, and b) know what houses and food to prepare to provide the most benefit? Communication and organisation are extremely valuable, even if the structures we set up are not the most efficient at doing so and may have a tendancy to create their own busywork (but computers have made that efficiency skyrocket. You're paid so much because you replace a small army of people shuffling paper around, and there's not enough people who can do that well).

> I'm just at a huge loss why we don't all focus on growing food and building interesting structures, ponds, waterfalls, arenas.

We are. One app at a time, building/growing becomes easier to do at scale, with less people, quicker, and more environmentally friendly.

You are directly contributing to the success of these activities, even if you are "just organising data".

(what a nihilistic way to say it. I wonder if nihilistic builders also say "i'm just stacking bricks 24/7 fml")

In the Army they say for every person in the field there's 10 people behind the scenes handling the logistics of keeping that person fed and supplied with what they need to be effective. Those people behind the scenes are every bit as important as that person in the field. That's what we do. We're the "behind the scenes" people that makes everything possible.

How do you calculate value, and even what is value, is a question that's been asked by philosophers, economists, and every day people for thousands of years but is still debated about.

... although one that stuck with me was "you're worth about how much it would be to replace you". And with that perspective you can see why you earn more than a subsistence farmer

You make it sound like you work in a filing department and that you're being figurative at the same time.

The average web developer (i.e. most of this site's users) is exactly that though: an organizer of data. Glue some API code together to slurp data out of one system and make it normalized for your own system.

If you feel that guilty about it, donate.

Why do you think donations will solve this problem?

I don't really disagree with you post but what does it have to do with the article posted?

There's beauty and craft in these things too!