Comment by sheepybloke | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sheepybloke | Hacker News Reader

This article is bad to the point of laughter. While it starts out talking about economics, the real point is to rail against other programs that aren't engineering, calling them worthless. Innovation doesn't just come from engineers. That point is laughable. On top of that, calling other degrees worthless just because their field doesn't pay well is also indicative of other problems in the system. For example, my wife is a stage manager for multiple ballet companies. She's quite successful in the field. It doesn't pay well, but she's needed to do the productions. Or think about an editor who went to school for english. They can get a job out of college, but only around 30k and can barely make ends meet. But saying they aren't innovative or pushing their fields because they don't scam VC's for money for their crypto app is silly and diminishing the impact and importance of the arts on our lives. And maybe if more people changes their view and saw how impactful the arts are, my wife might be paid a bit more and can more easily pay off her degree.

These things might have value to you, which is nice, but they may or may not have any value to other people. Maybe ballet is a dead art. How much "value" does a mime artist or a lute player add to society? Your idea of value is totally subjective and driven by your personal circumstances. That is fine, but don't force others to subsidize your choices.

University used to be a place where you had to perform at an exceptional intellectual level across a balanced set of topics. Now, most schools have removed most/all of the STEM requirements for non-STEM students (or have dumbed them down to STEM for babies courses) and they are grinding out extremely mediocre task-followers with valueless degrees.

What about teachers? Should they not go to college because they don't get paid well? Or journalists? Should everyone who can't do math well just go a be a business major? Should they not go and study to start a career in their field that they are good and passionate about? If we are looking at value, we need to look at how much value we put on these other areas as well, where you can get a decent job but still not make enough to continue forward.

On the last part, we as an industry need to be a bit more introspective. How many CS programs produce someone who is a mediocre task follower?

If other people aren't willing to trade their magical tokens for your services then your services are not valuable.

That is not the same thing as saying just beacuse you have no valuable skills you deserve to die of hunger and disease.

People are quite willing. The entertainment industry is huge, between TV, concerts, theatre productions, etc. However, does that money come down to the artist or the people doing the work? The issue is that this idea also applies to other people areas as well, such as teacher or journalists. These are services that are valuable, but they are not paid well.

They're paid based on supply and demand through their employers. Meaning the organization favours paying someone in a management position a higher salary, rather than the rank and file. The same industry pays certain actors or musicians outsized fees.

This is not a question of ethics or fairness, it is supply and demand. You can only pay X people Y amount when starting with K dollars.

I am not trying to be pedantic here but simple rules at large scale produce complex results that may sometimes seem counter intuitive or unfair. Evolution is simple rules applied at scale and it produces results that don't seem quite right but are obviously effective because they survive.

Again, the real issue I have isn't "fairness". It's the simple notation that just because a major doesn't make as much money as another makes it "worthless" and not innovative. It's the notion that we're more innovative because we can work with CSS divs. It's the notion that if you can't do math or STEM, you should just become a business major because everything else you do is veritably worthless. That is what I'm pushing back against.

I see what you mean. I agree with you that it is incorrect to say that it is not innovative, or new, or useful. Those don't always correlate with monetary value.

The author however is talking about value in monetary terms, as in what other people are willing to pay you for it therefore something innovative or cool can indeed be "worthless" in the same way that a beautiful painting is worthless to a thirsty man in the desert.

Innovation and pushing a field is worthless unless someone is willing to pay for it.

People don't care or want what you do, the solution is to either convince them or do something else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com