Shan Jan Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 Ako pitas privatni biznis svi ce ti reci da im treba vise ljudi koji su trenirani a manje onih koji bi da phdijisu i nesto kenjkaju. Jbg, vecina ljudi ne vidi dalje od svog nosa.Za univerzitete ono sto ja vidim je problem koji se dotice svih poludrzavnih institucija - ne odgovaraju nikome. Pa tako na BUu mozes naci profe koje se izglasavaju izmedju sebe a ovde npr. menadjere koji se nakotise ko mravi pred kisu i samo povecavaju plate sebi dok cuttinguju kost i.e polako ukidaju departmane.
Indy Posted May 1, 2013 Author Posted May 1, 2013 Zanimljiv tekst. Innovation and productivity increases may not be enough to restore growth to the stellar levels of the twentieth century. We may just have to get used to lower growth and living standards, writes Satyajit Das.
Indy Posted May 25, 2013 Author Posted May 25, 2013 Kako je internet unistio srednju klasu - Jaron Lanier. Here’s a current example of the challenge we face, ... At the height of its power, the photography company Kodak employed more than 140,000 people and was worth $28 billion. They even invented the first digital camera. But today Kodak is bankrupt, and the new face of digital photography has become Instagram. When Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, it employed only 13 people. Where did all those jobs disappear? And what happened to the wealth that all those middle-class jobs created? Well, I think what’s been happening is a shift from the formal to the informal economy for most people. So that’s to say if you use Instagram to show pictures to your friends and relatives, or whatever service it is, there are a couple of things that are still the same as they were in the times of Kodak. One is that the number of people who are contributing to the system to make it viable is probably the same. Instagram wouldn’t work if there weren’t many millions of people using it. And furthermore, many people kind of have to use social networks for them to be functional besides being valuable. People have to, there’s a constant tending that’s done on a volunteer basis so that people can find each other and whatnot.So there’s still a lot of human effort, but the difference is that whereas before when people made contributions to the system that they used, they received formal benefits, which means not only salary but pensions and certain kinds of social safety nets. Now, instead, they receive benefits on an informal basis. And what an informal economy is like is the economy in a developing country slum. It’s reputation, it’s barter, it’s that kind of stuff. The informal way of getting by doesn’t tide you over when you’re sick and it doesn’t let you raise kids and it doesn’t let you grow old. It’s not biologically real. But the benefits are really huge, which is you get a middle-class distribution of wealth and clout so the mass of people can outspend the top, and if you don’t have that you can’t really have democracy. Democracy is destabilized if there isn’t a broad distribution of wealth....And then the other thing is that if you like market capitalism, if you’re an Ayn Rand person, you have to admit that markets can only function if there are customers and customers can only come if there’s a middle hump. So you have to have a broad distribution of wealth. It was all a social construct to begin with, so what changed, to get to your question, is that at the turn of the [21st] century it was really Sergey Brin at Google who just had the thought of, well, if we give away all the information services, but we make money from advertising, we can make information free and still have capitalism. But the problem with that is it reneges on the social contract where people still participate in the formal economy. And it’s a kind of capitalism that’s totally self-defeating because it’s so narrow. It’s a winner-take-all capitalism that’s not sustaining. in a market society, a middle class has always required some little artificial help to keep going. There’s always academic tenure, or a taxi medallion, or a cosmetology license, or a pension. There’s often some kind of license or some kind of ratcheting scheme that allows people to keep their middle-class status. Do you know who Jenna Marbles is? She’s a super-successful YouTube star. She’s the queen of self-help videos for young women. She’s kind of a cross between Snooki and Martha Stewart or something. And she’s cool. I mean, she kind of helps girls with how to do makeup, and she’s irreverent. She’s had a billion views.The interesting thing about it is that people advertise, “Oh, what an incredible life. She’s this incredibly lucky person who’s worked really hard.” And that’s all true. She’s in her 20s, and it’s great that she’s found this success, but what this success is that she makes maybe $250,000 a year, and she rents a house that’s worth $1.1 million in L.A.. And this is all breathlessly reported as this great success. And that’s good for a 20-year-old, but she’s at the very top of, I mean, the people at the very top of the game now and doing as well as what used to be considered good for a middle-class life. And I don’t want to dismiss that. That’s great for a 20-year-old, although in truth, in my world of engineers that wouldn’t be much. But for someone who’s out there, a star with a billion views, that’s a crazy low expectation. She’s not even in the 1 percent. For the tiny token number of people who make it to the top of YouTube, they’re not even making it into the 1 percent. The issue is if we’re going to have a middle class anymore, and if that’s our expectation, we won’t. And then we won’t have democracy. When I talk to libertarians and socialists, they have this weird belief that everybody’s this abstract robot that won’t ever get sick or have kids or get old. It’s like everybody’s this eternal freelancer who can afford downtime and can self-fund until they find their magic moment or something. I have 14-year-old kids who come to my talks who say, “But isn’t open source software the best thing in life? Isn’t it the future?” It’s a perfect thought system. It reminds me of communists I knew when growing up or Ayn Rand libertarians. It’s one of these things where you have a simplistic model that suggests this perfect society so you just believe in it totally. These perfect societies don’t work. We’ve already seen hyper-communism come to tears. And hyper-capitalism come to tears. And I just don’t want to have to see that for cyber-hacker culture. We should have learned that these perfect simple systems are illusions. I am culturally a man on the left. ... I want to live in a world where outcomes for people are not predetermined in advance with outcomes. ... The problem I have with socialist utopias is there’s some kind of committees trying to soften outcomes for people. I think that imposes models of outcomes for other people’s lives. So in a spiritual sense there’s some bit of libertarian in me. But the critical thing for me is moderation.
Shan Jan Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 Ne cita mi se ceo clanak a ovo ne razumem. Kako je dodjavola internet kriv za unistenje srednje klase? Doktori, advokati, inzenjeri, arhitekte, gradjevinci, naucnici, programeri... sve je i dalje tu.
Indy Posted May 27, 2013 Author Posted May 27, 2013 Pa nisu svi. Recimo, ja nisam. Meni je ovo intimno poznato o cemu prica. Nekada su me ljudi placali zato sto sam znao odredjene stvari (i imao pristup odredjenim resursima). Sada je za to uglavnom dovoljan Google i Wikipedia (pri cemu je tu i tamo i moj rad iskoriscen za informacije).Mene je web direktno istisnuo, tj. jako smanjio potrebu za tim da me neko placa (ljudi naravno nemaju nista protiv da im ja dajem savete dzabe, kao sto je to i Google - to se takodje pominje u tekstu). Danas se ocekuje da das unapred stvari od sebe za dzabe, pa ce posle da vidimo. Moze da bidne a ne mora da znaci. Isto prolaze mnogi fotografi, muzicari i slicno (kao sto tekst opisuje). Znaci, ja mogu da napravim svoja predavanja, okacim na YouTube, i ako dobijem 100.000 hitova dnevno, mozda mogu da zivim od toga. Dok sam zanimljiv youtubistima. Tako to nekako danas ide.Naravno, zasticeni cehovi (lekari, pravnici, zubari i slicno) su i dalje tu. U drugim strukama masa ljudstva je prebacena u prekarijat (nestalno zaposlenje). Recimo, u Australiji je pre 10 godina retkost bila naci sessional teacher-a (nastavnik koji se zaposljava samo za semestar, a van toga nije u radnom odnosu). Danas je, posebno medju mladjima, to dominantna forma "zaposlenja". (Nije to u stvari pravo zaposlenje. Kao sto tekst gore tacno primecuje, to je nesto sto se da tolerisati dok si mlad, zdrav, bez dece i tome slicno. Kasnije je potrebna nekakva sigurnost, oslanac i nekakvo osiguranje drustvenog statusa - to se sve vise gubi. O cemu pise gornji autor, kao i Guy Standing, koga sam vise puta pominjao).Mislim, licno, da nije samo internet*, nego je u pitanju double whammy: Internet + Kina/Indija.(* - misli se uglavnom na Internet unazad 5-7 godina, tj. od pojave Googlea i drustvenih medija).
Time Crisis Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Nije mi baš jasno kakve veze ima Kodak sa Instagramom. Valjda su mu konkurenti Canon, Nikon, Olympus itd., a svi oni još postoje i rade, Instagram je samo bezvezni servis koji sutra može da nestane :)
Indy Posted May 27, 2013 Author Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Pa ima veze. Ljudi su pre koristili Kodak, a sad (velikim delom) ti isti ljudi koriste Instagram.A bilo bi zanimljivo pogledati koliko (i gde) ljudi je zaposleno u Canon, Nikon, Olympus kompanijama, koliko su placeni i za koji posao i pod kojim uslovima. Nesto sumnjam da bi se sadasnje vreme tu mnogo dobro provelo u poredjenju sa decenijom/dve ranije.EDIT Drugo, Kodak bas nije isto sto Canon/Nikon/etc - Kodak je kreirao odredjeni izgled fotografije, koji sada Instagram najdirektnije oponsasha svojim "filterima" + Covek je Amerikanac, Kodak je bila USA kompanija, za razliku od ostalih. Manufacturing je ionako otisao u Aziju, a i tamo se cak preliva iz Japana u Kinu. Edited May 27, 2013 by Indy
Time Crisis Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Pa nije Instagram zamena za Kodak, i dalje moraš imati neku kameru koja će uslikati tu sliku koja će zatim biti objavljena na Instagramu (ili Fejsbuku, Tviteru, Flikeru i milion drugih mesta). Pre bih rekao da im je na profit uticala sama digitalija (ne proizvode se više filmovi i sve ostalo što je uz to išlo), mobilni telefoni sa sve boljim kamerama i slično :)
Indy Posted May 27, 2013 Author Posted May 27, 2013 Mislim da masis poentu. Ne radi se o tome koji je deo opreme u pitanju, nego o tome da su ti silni (stabilni) poslovi jednostavno nestali (preciznije receno, nestali su iz Amerike).Sem toga, gornji tekst je povodom knjige u kojoj pise o tome pretpostavljam mnogo detaljnije o svemu ovome, pa dok ne dodjem do knjige nisam bas u stanju da branim njegove teze od svake moguce kritike (a moguce da nije u svemu ni u pravu, na kraju krajeva).
Shan Jan Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Indy, ne znam cime si se ti konkretno bavio pa si istisnut (mislio sam da je to poljoprivreda i podrska za IT, te dve stvari su jos jako trazene). Sto se tice umetnika postoje nacini. Znam da jedan moj drug radi fotografije i kaci ih nedje pa ti plati pa skini, funkcionise.Cinjenica je da je internet omogucio da mnoga znanja budu na izvolte (snimci predavanja, kopije svake moguce knjige i sl.). Medjutim tvoja potrebnost izvire ironicno i iz toga - internet je prirucno sredstvo, ljudi ga uglavnom koriste bez dubljeg razumevanja i idalje je potreban strucnjak koji razume sustinu i koji je tome posvetio zivot. Imam ovde sad bas jednu musteriju sa dell masinama, neces verovati, imaju masine, imaju rezervne delove al u celoj jebenoj zemlji ne mogu da nadju nekog da im ih odrzava sa garancijom da ce sve biti ok (production). Mi im ponudili da se prebace na ibm, posto je to ono sto mi podrzavamo. E sad, mozes ti naci lepo na netu kako se odrzava dell i to je super al ako nesto sjebes, ako nisi sve lepo razumeo (a nemas vremena da citas par hiljada strana vec trazis samo hitno resenje) onda si ga najebo i ti i firma ti.Mozda je kriv moj pogled na svet al ja zaista ne mogu da krivim kvalitetnog inzenjera iz Kine/Indije koji radi za manje para od mene (mada je i to retkost). Problem je ofkors sto ima masa priucenih al to je druga prica. Meni je isto tako milo srcu da vidim da je znanje dostupnije a usluge jeftinije jer to vodi po meni boljem drustvu. E sad, druga je stvar sto onda ako rad postane prejeftin i malo trazen drzava mora da uskace da potpomogne (il sindikati sta god). Ovo podseca zapravo na range prema masinama za sivenje. Nacice se nacin da svi dobiju deo ekonomskog kolaca (za to drzava i sluzi), makar samo sedeli i cackali nos a strucnjaci ce uvek biti trazeni. Hocu reci, nije kriv internet ako ljudi nisu dobro i sigurno placeni vec drzava i njena politika. Ako su problem jeftina radna snaga iz Kine/Indije stavi zabranu imigracije, potpomazi ostale grane privrede sa profitabilnima (rudarstvo), jednom recju vodi drzavu.
Indy Posted May 27, 2013 Author Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Ma, Shane, uopste nije sporno da se osipa srednja klasa i da su uslovi zaposlenja daleko nesigurniji pre nego deceniju - dve. O tome uopste nemam nameru da tupim tastaturu.E sad, da li je to zbog gugla, socijalnih medija, Kine, Indije, boga-oca, o tome vec mozemo da pricamo.Ja i te kako mislim da ovaj covek ima poentu. I znam mnogo primera ljudi koji su u srednjim godinama otisli iz stabilnog zaposlenja u nesigurnost. Nemoj biti prevaren time da mnogi to prikazuju kao nesto sto su zeleli i da im je sasvim OK u zivotu. Naime, to se tako radi. Jako je lose otvoreno govoriti da ti lose ide u zivotu (najbolji prediktor da ti zaista tako i bude). Pricam naravno prevashodno o razvijenim zemljama, te mislim da ce me najbolje razumeti oni koji iste dobro poznaju iznutra.EDIT. Drugo sto mislim da mozda brkas nesto - ovde se radi o tome sta se dogadja sa stotinama hiljada/milionima ljudi, ne sa pojedincima. Naravno da i dalje postoje inzinjeri i naucnici sa stalnim poslovima, i postojace i za 100 godina. Njihovi redovi se, medjutim, osipaju i uslovi zaposlenja su daleko manje povoljni nego sto su to nekada bili u uporedivim uslovima. Edited May 27, 2013 by Indy
Time Crisis Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Mislim da masis poentu. Ne radi se o tome koji je deo opreme u pitanju, nego o tome da su ti silni (stabilni) poslovi jednostavno nestali (preciznije receno, nestali su iz Amerike).Ako se ne varam, poenta je bila da ih je Internet uništio? Mislim da to nije baš tačno u pomenutom primeru, jedan malo detaljniji tekst koga ne mrzi da čita:Bad Choices, Not Just Photography Going Digital, Put Eastman Kodak Into Bankruptcy http://www.forbes.com/sites/joanlappin/2012/01/19/bad-choices-not-just-photography-going-digital-put-eastman-kodak-into-bankruptcy/
Indy Posted May 27, 2013 Author Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Ne razumes me (a ni onaj tekst). Nisu bitni detalji. Bitna je velika slika.EDIT. Treba razmisljati o tome odakle ta vrednost (u milijardama) koja se odjednom stvorila u rukama nekih ljudi u dvadesetim. O tome covek prica. Sta su to oni nama dali za to, ko je od toga imao korist, sta je izgubljeno i ko je od toga ranijeg imao korist.EDIT 2. Da ne ispadne da mislim da Shan i Time Crisis pricaju bez veze, mislim da su to zanimljivi komentari, u stvari kritike na mestu. Pokusavam samo da objasnim zasto mislim da je ovaj covek ipak u pravu (u odredjenom smislu, ne pretendujem da je to neka apsolutna i globalna istina, ne znam da li on to pretenduje, ne verujem). Edited May 27, 2013 by Indy
Time Crisis Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Hm... što se tiče te vrednosti u milijardama u rukama 20-godišnjaka, ponekad je to prilično sumnjiva i klimava vrednost. Npr. čuvena kompanija za društvene igre Zynga (Farmville itd) je u decembru 2011 navodno vredela 7 milijardi dolara, da bi godinu dana kasnije bilo objavljeno da ne vredi ništa.Mada sigurno da i ja nisam baš dobro razumeo šta je tačno autor citiranog teksta hteo da kaže.
Indy Posted May 27, 2013 Author Posted May 27, 2013 Mada sigurno da i ja nisam baš dobro razumeo šta je tačno autor citiranog teksta hteo da kaže.Procitacu knjigu cim je nadjem za ilegalni download, a odmah potom pokusati da prepricam jednostavnijim recima. :fantom:Cak i ovako na brzinu meni se cini da tu ima nekih prevelikih generalizacija, ali postoje neke stvari koje mislim da je vrlo dobro uocio.Problem je ako ja krenem ovde da ilustrujem to primerima iz zivota (kao sto sam pomenuo sebe) onda ce uvek biti 1 tendencija da se ti primeri explain away (prirodna je tendencija da se problem trazi u pojedincu pre nego u sistemu).Bolji je primer koji sam naveo sa casual-izacijom poslova u npr. skolskoj nastavi. To je masovna pojava, ne zavisi od pojedinaca i njihovih izbora i pored toga dogadja se u strucnoj oblasti koja je tradicionalno bila "rezervisana" za dozivotno siguran posao sa penzijom, godisnjim odmorima i svim drugim slicnim beneficijama. (Da li to konkretno ima neke veze sa rastom interneta, to je teze pitanje, medjutim u najmanju ruku se u potpunosti poklapa vremenski - zadnjih 5 i nesto godina je eksplozija u tom smislu).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now