Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrianN | Hacker News Reader

Even if you accept that the trend of more jobs being created by technology than are being destroyed will continue indefinitely, fretting over technology replacing you if you're taxi driver is very justified. Having to learn a completely new trade is not easy.

View on HN

Society as a whole benefits, but there are high individual costs. We ought to figure out a way to smooth out those costs for the individuals.

I am not sure it always does.

Do you view the NSA's snooping technology as a benefit to society? More high tech, well paid jobs have been created there.

Likewise I feel that a great deal of the tech involved in finance is of questionable benefit to society as aw whole. Does High frequency trading actually benefit anyone other than the banks?

I'm no financial expert, but I believe HFT benefits many people by making the difference between buy-price and sell-price smaller and increasing the liquidity of the market.

The banks seem to be the only ones benefiting from this as far as I can tell. My life doesn't feel any better for HFT.

Look around you. Pick any product you like. A thousand financial transactions went into making it, all along the supply chain. Currencies were converted and hedged, iron ore and copper and crude oil futures were purchased and sold. When technology squeezes out middlemen and makes them more efficient, you gain.

On the other hand when bankers manipulate prices then everyone looses.

I could be wrong, but from what I understand of HFT, it doesn't squeeze out middlemen, it squeezes out competition. It sets the barrier to entry so high that only the super rich can participate. I agree completely with your point, by the way, I'm just not sure HFT is a good example of it.

And this is only the economical measure of benefits for the society. For instance rarely anyone speaks of the environmental damage as a direct result of human advancement which might ultimately be fatal for society.

Then again, no-one ever said that you could learn a trade at 20, and that trade would still be relevant when you're 40. If capitalism is something you agree with, then you must also accept the transitory nature of your work. Although personally I do agree we should try to make it easier for people in that position.

Given this, it's truly tragic when a young adult takes on a mammoth debt to learn a skill that is then made irrelevant.

It's unfortunate future-planning. It's impossible to know what the future holds but there is some level of precedent to help decide. Although with no guarantees, a job that has been around for hundreds of years is a bit more likely to stick around than a new job field that was just created 2 months ago.

I'd go in debt to become a carpenter before I went in debt learning a JS Framework, as an example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com