Absolutely. Good managers are invisible. They don't need to talk about career growth as they have already silently, in the background, removed any impediments that might have prevented you from growing. All you need to do is move in the direction you want to go.
> I suspect many will find themselves locked out the middle class for generations.
On the other hand, once software as a high paying career dies there will be nothing to prop up the status quo (high cost of housing, for example) so the middle class will return to being much more accessible to modestly paid jobs.
> This is a really concerning perspective: people were paid what they were worth.
The parent comment doesn't discount that, only pointing out that "what they were worth" was inflated due to a speculative environment. Wherein lies your concern?
That prices change from one point in time to another is a trivial fact.
“Inflated due to a speculative environment” is not an accurate way to frame labor prices that held for many years. At that point, the prices were simply high due to high demand relative to supply (compared to other types of labor).
> At that point, the prices were simply high due to high demand relative to supply
That goes without saying. The investigation here is into demand. Which was said to be overinflated due to speculation. As noted, many of the companies hiring the developers did not have viable businesses.
I think calling it inflated is to play to a narrative that labor was overvalued broadly in tech.
Salaries across industries in the US have remained flat since the 1970s. Calling the one sector that can provide access a middle class lifestyle inflated s to play into a narrative capital is eager to tell, even if OP didn't intend that.
> Salaries across industries in the US have remained flat since the 1970s
What do you mean? The real (meaning adjusted for inflation) hourly wage in the US has increased by around 20% since 1970.
What has changed since the 1970s is that wages are no longer coupled to productivity. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of? But that should be an obvious truism for anyone in tech. We create the very things that cause that to be the case!
That NeoLiberal shift did not take place in a vacuum. It was a product of the world around it. It absolutely was caused by tech.
If we — those with the power to build the productivity creators — took a stand and said "we refuse to create tech for the interests of the few" it would have never happened. But, instead, we welcomed it and are responsible for it.
The corollary of “if we took a stand” is that Capital took a stand and collectively undid a lot of the gains of the post-WWII social democratic order.
So no. It wasn’t caused by tech beyond the uninteresting factors like modern society being complex and, of course, that tech developments influence things (pretty much all things).
The productivity gains we've seen above the capacity of human productivity would have been impossible without tech. It absolutely was caused by tech.
The benefactor of those gains was also entirely decided by those who created the tech. We could have given use of that tech to everyone. In some cases we actually did (e.g. open source), but in most cases we gained (at least partial) ownership of the capital so it was in our best personal economic interest to keep it for ourselves and our close friends.
> The productivity gains we've seen above the capacity of human productivity would have been impossible without tech. It absolutely was caused by tech.
Would have been impossible without and being caused by are different things.
The sense of being “caused by” in a political context are the people who have the power to direct things. Which are not necessarily the people who implement something.
> The benefactor of those gains was also entirely decided by those who created the tech.
You assert that they were decided by. Based on what?
The vast majority of tech work was done in employment, either for some government or for private entities. The private entitites were controlled by Capital. The governments were controlled by democratic forces and Capital.
> We could have given use of that tech to everyone. In some cases we actually did (e.g. open source),
Again I reference the meme of Overworked Nebraska OSS Maintainer.
The impressive work done on OSS by tech workers directly have been done in their free time. The bulk of OSS work done by people as a living is probably through corporations like e.g. Intel working on the Linux Kernel.[1]
That impressive free time work has gotten the reputation as a treasure trove for the highly motivated and tech literate. In contrast to something that regular people can plug-and-play as an alternative to Big Tech dominance.
> , but in most cases we gained (at least partial) ownership of the capital so it was in our best personal economic interest to keep it for ourselves and our close friends.
Yes, well played. For those that got away with their financial-independence millions. For the rest, well, I guess they never managed to learn the moral lesson of Monopoly.
While you are right to recognize that there was some attempt to inject political context, it was not there originally, and is not the main discussion taking place. The fact that wages and productivity have become decoupled is not inherently political. It is but simple mathematics. Tech is the cause for the decoupling; it is why we have been able to become continually more productive and at an accelerating rate.
> The vast majority of tech work was done in employment
Yes, but generally even where employment is present tech workers also demand a share in ownership (e.g. stock). Tech doesn't invent itself. At least not yet. The workers have held the cards. Even those who haven't won the lottery are still in a pretty good economic position, relatively speaking.
> While you are right to recognize that there was some attempt to inject political context, it was not there originally, and is not the main discussion taking place.
I don’t care if anyone wants political context to be there or not. Political context is not some subjective choice that the participants in a discussion can choose to be the case or not, like some alternative history exercise.
This political context (i.e. reality) called NeoLiberalism is so well-researched and argued that I can just call it NeoLiberalism and even a forum full of techheads don’t bat an eye. Which is more than can be said for your incoherent nuh-uh where both:
- Technology just determines things by itself
- And (also) the rank and file peons who implement technology could have forced something better on the world (than the pile of shit that we have)
Trouble is that regulation isn't imposed by an omnipotent deity in the sky. In a democracy, regulation must come from the very same people who you say don't care, don't complain, and aren't willing to change their habits. Given that you say the people don't care, aren't willing to change, and perhaps even prefer the status quo, regulation isn't going to magically appear.
> The first company which can achieve human level intelligence will just be able to...
They say prostitution is the oldest industry of all. We know how to achieve human-level intelligence quite well. The outstanding challenge is figuring out how to produce an energy efficient human-level intelligence.
It is funny that you originally recognized and found it necessary to call out that AI isn't human, but then made the exact same mistake yourself in the very same comment. I expect the term you are looking for is "ontological bias".
> Implement ubiquitous and free public transportation in every urban center (where 80% of the American population lives [0])
In, or between? Like your link tells, urban is defined by 2,000 houses. At that scale, in-town transport doesn't really make sense. You can already walk just about everywhere in five minutes. A single train station to get you to other towns makes more sense, but...
- We already had exactly that in the past. Perhaps service ended because nobody wanted to use it? ...
- After all, the town already has the town things. The whole point of living in an urban area is so you can walk to all the things you need on a daily basis. If you are leaving the walkable bubble, you're most likely headed to a rural point to access that which cannot be offered in an urban setting. Transport isn't about where people live, but where they are going.
Although the article is unsure whether they sold more t-shirts than tickets, implying that people were interested in the music in a live capacity.
Which is a reasonable implication given that punk grew up around the DIY culture. A commercially produced recording doesn't exactly align with the interests of that type of community, even where that community enjoys the music itself.
reply