undefined | Better HN

0 pointsYuriNiyazov10y ago0 comments

Yea, no.

JM Keynes said eons ago that with increases in efficiency we will eventually be able to get to a 15-hour work week. So, a particular industry in a particular area was able to get to an approximation of that, and the counter-argument is that this is not a productive use of capital?

Besides, TFA complains that all these people are working on silly startups, which is presumably not a productive use of capital either. You can't have it both ways.

0 comments

munificent10y ago

> a particular industry in a particular area was able to get to an approximation of that

On the backs of whom? How much are those Uber drivers, grocery deliverers, and artisanal salad chefs making?

It is good that one group of people is moving forward, we just have to be careful that we aren't doing it at the expense of other groups. The impression I get is that in the US today, it's not just that some people are getting richer, many others are getting poorer.

YuriNiyazovOP10y ago

I'm confused. At least in this subthread we are discussing just the sabbatical part here, not the general economic inequality. Are you saying that someone who has enough money to take a sabbatical is doing it on the backs of uber drivers and grocery deliverers?

acchow10y ago

> On the backs of whom?

I don't believe there is such a law of economics.

matzipan10y ago

Seriously, most tech startups are not bringing a bump in productivity, but are a mere pixel moving money waste for VCs, who don't really care if about the 9 failures if 1 startup pays off massively. The problem is that VC's don't even care about profitability anymore, they only care about being bought-off by next stage VCs. So all the money actually comes from 1 ad supported startup which became profitable and the losses for all the others were written off.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse