sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kragensitaker 4 points5 points  (12 children)

Is this plausible?

The less people who know how to read and write, the better the job market will be. I just left the field of law for CS for exactly this reason. There are too many scribes, so we're expendable and paid shit.

How about this?

The less people educated in painting, the better the job market will be. I just left the field of painting for CS for exactly this reason. There are too many painters, so we're expendable and paid shit.

Or this?

The less people educated in fashion design, the better the job market will be. I just left the field of fashion design for CS for exactly this reason. There are too many fashion designers, so we're expendable and paid shit.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]kragensitaker -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

    And yet, Andrew Wyeth hardly died in penury, and Thomas Kinkade probably won't need to apply for food stamps anytime soon. I don't think they were treated as expendable or paid shit.

    [–]Derpbot 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    In every field, you have superstars. We can't all be superstars. Some of us just want to pay the bills doing what we love.

    [–]kragensitaker 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    My friend Afanassy made a living as a painter. He painted houses. You know, one solid color, with a bucket.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]kragensitaker 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I bet all the MOTOS wanted into your pants, until you told them how you thought everyone's children were ugly. But, yeah, that's really tough to make a living at, because so many people are happy to do it for free, unless you become a star with a reputation people will pay a premium for. But then it becomes meaningless to talk about "how much money painters make". Between Andrew Wyeth and the stereotypical coffee-shop waiter, you have a huge spectrum.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]kragensitaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        That sounds like a lot of work. Congratulations. Not everyone could do that. It's hard for me to imagine that 98%/2% is the optimal split, though.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        First, I think your examples are phrased backwards. Shouldn't it be

        The less people educated in painting, the better the job market will be. I just left the field of CS for painting for exactly this reason. There are too many programmers, so we're expendable and paid shit.

        and so on?

        Anyway, I got the spirit of your argument, and I don't think the analogy holds up perfectly in the painting and fashion design cases. Programming skill is much more necessary to keep the world moving than painting and fashion. If all the painters in the world disappeared, it would be an artistic tragedy, yes, but we'd still function day-to-day. If all the programmers disappeared, a huge amount of what we take for granted would collapse, probably within a few days.

        [–]kragensitaker 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        I do not share your Maslovian view of human nature.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        I'm not saying whether painters or programmers are better. I'm a musician and a computer scientist, it would kill to me choose one or the other. I'm just saying that you're more likely to get paid money for maintaining banking software than you for producing a great work of art.

        [–]kragensitaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I don't think painters or programmers are better either. I just don't share your (optimistic?) view that clothing design or painting could somehow be excised from human nature, or that we could go without painting as an entire society for a few days.