Hacker News Reader

Comment by csa | Hacker News Reader

> But the job had better take fewer people, or the automation is not justified.

In many cases, this is a fallacy.

Much like programming, there is often essentially an infinite amount of (in this case) bookkeeping tasks that need to be done. The folks employed to do them work on the top X number of them. By removing a lot of the scut work, second order tasks can be done (like verification, clarification, etc.) or can be done more thoroughly.

Source: Me. I have worked waaaay too much on cleaning up the innards of less-than-perfect accounting processes.

View on HN

Well said. It’s like they think that the only thing automation is good for is cutting costs. You can keep the same staff size but increase output instead, creating more value.

"They" don't think the only thing automation is good for is cutting costs. Management thinks the only thing worth doing, at all, using any means, is cutting costs.

Well that’s clearly false, and obviously “they” refers to people that include management lol

The firm simply assumes that if the top X was sufficient in the past, it is still sufficient now.

From the perspective of modern management, there's really no reason to keep people if you can automate them away.

See self checkouts at supermarkets, with teams reduced to when checkouts go bad, or filling the shelves.

Not only do the prices increase, now we get pushed to their jobs for free, while the chains layoff their employees.

Hence why I usually refuse to use them if I have to take some additional extra time queuing.

I have mixed feelings on these.

For a full cart, I expect a cashier or to be available.

If I have 3-5 items, I’d rather do it myself than wait.

That said, even 20-30 years ago, long before self checkout, at places like WalMart, one could wait 15-20 minutes in line. They had employees but were too cheap to have enough. They really didn’t care.

I don’t even understand how that math works. I might have kept going there if they had a few extra lowly paid cashiers around.

> The firm simply assumes that if the top X was sufficient in the past, it is still sufficient now.

> From the perspective of modern management, there's really no reason to keep people if you can automate them away.

These are examples of how bad management thinks, or at best, how management at dying companies think.

Frankly, this take on “modern management” is absurd reductionist thinking.

Just a few points about how managers in successful companies think:

- Good employees are hard to find. You don’t let good people go just because you can. Retraining a good employee from a redundant role into a needed role is often cheaper than trying to hire a new person.

- That said, in any sufficiently large organization, there is usually dead weight that can be cut. AI will be a bright light that exposes the least valuable employees, imho.

- There is a difference between threshold levels of compliance (e.g., docs that have to be filed for legal reasons) and optimal functioning. In accounting, a good team will pay for themselves many times if they have the time to work on the right things (e.g., identifying fraud and waste, streamlining purchasing processes, negotiating payment terms, etc.). Businesses that optimize for making money rather than getting a random VP their next promotion via cost-cutting will embrace the enhanced capability.

Yes, AI will bring about significant changes to how we work.

Yes, there will be some turmoil as the labor market adjusts (which it will).

No, AI will not lead to a labor doomsday scenario.

> - Good employees are hard to find. You don’t let good people go just because you can. Retraining a good employee from a redundant role into a needed role is often cheaper than trying to hire a new person.

Your best employees at a given price though.

Part of firm behavior is to let go of their most expensive workers when they decide to tighten belts.

Unless your employee is unable to negotiate, lacking the information and leverage to be paid the market rate for their ability. Your best employees will be your more expensive, senior employees.

Everything is at a certain price. Firing your best employee when you can get the job done with cheaper, or you can make do with cheaper, is also a common and rational move.

While I agree it’s unlikely that there won’t be a labour doomsday scenario, I think ann under employment scenario is highly likely. Offshoring ended up decimating many cities and local economies, as factory foremen found new roles as burger flipper.

Nor do people retrain into new domains and roles easily. The more senior you are, the harder it is to recover into a commensurately well paying role.

AI promises to reduce the demand for the people in the prime age to earn money, in the few high paying roles that remain.

Not the apocalypse as people fear, but not that great either.

Is Microsoft a "dying company"? The stock market certainly thinks otherwise.

> Is Microsoft a "dying company"? The stock market certainly thinks otherwise.

This is the entire sentence that I wrote that you seem to be referring to:

“These are examples of how bad management thinks, or at best, how management at dying companies think.”

MS falls under the first part — bad management. Let literacy be your friend.

To elaborate, yes, I think that MS is managed incredibly poorly, and they succeed despite their management norms and culture, not because of it. They should be embarrassed by their management culture, but their success in other areas of the company allows the bad management culture to persist.

What successful tech companies don't have "bad management", then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com