LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 189
0 members and 189 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
View Single Post
Old 05-03-2017, 02:11 PM   #36
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
Actually, misogyny is absolutely critical for understanding economic problems in this country.

Right now, the most significant constraint on the growth of the tech industry is availability of talent, and the biggest reason tech companies take good jobs abroad is not to find cheap labor but to find good engineers and scientists. China's production of engineers is mind-boggling.

In the US, I don't think we're going to significantly increase the number of white boys who go for tech or science careers. Huge numbers of them have the opportunity and support (100% in most suburban areas), and choose to do something else.

The largest untapped source of tech talent inside the US right now is girls who are being dissuaded from pursuing tech careers by misogyny. That number is huge. Watching what my daughter has to deal with in her engineer training you get a good sense of how many barriers there are. You want lower immigration? Train young girls in science.

The second largest untapped source of tech talent inside the US is African American and Hispanic, but that's not about misogyny, that's something else.
Anything hampering innovation is a serious problem. But misogyny in tech is a narrow phenomenon. (I also don't want to lower immigration. That'd really fuck innovation.)

It just seems that the sooner we get ahead of planning for automation, the more we might be able to harness it for progress, rather than view it as some enemy of workers.

Why not have the conversation, nationally, loudly, about how we can move forward toward Keynes' 15 hour workweek? Why is that only the subject of TED talks, or weirdos like us? Are we afraid that people might not be receptive to the idea of working 1/4 what they do right now? That there's a majority of people anywhere in the world who'd say, "I do not wish to hear about how I might work less and spend more time with my family! I do not want to spend more of my time in leisure, thank you very much... I prefer to have technology continue enslaving me and causing me to work nearly around the clock instead of putting it to use for me." A person of such demented mindset would be committed!

ETA: We have this really dumb view that creativity and great developments, great art, etc. accrue from people putting in endless hours. (Fuck you very much, Malcolm Gladwell's 10k Hr. Rule.) Of course you have to work to see good results. But a harried, multitasking, endlessly-on-call worker is not a fount of innovation. He's a guy treading water. His juices are spent, and he's not recharging enough to have necessary insights to create anything innovative (excellent proof is the LSD micro-dosing going on in Silicon Valley... if you need to drop a quarter hit of acid to find your creative and productive self, you're in a malfunctioning system [not that there's anything wrong with taking hallucinogens, which everyone should be required to do for the benefit of society generally]).

If we can sleep, if we can slow down from time to time... if we can be at peace for just a bit of time every day, we can do in 15 minutes what our burned-out selves take 2 hrs to complete. And the scientific proof of what happens to a mind absorbing too much short bit information and never sleeping is right before us: Trump.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 05-03-2017 at 02:22 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 AM.