>>11506>The replacement through automation is not the same thing as replacement by other workers.The two go hand in hand. Automation is a slow process where things become easier and easier increasing the number of people who can do a job and making people more replaceable. For instance where once we needed talented musicians, with autotune, we now need anyone who can hold a guitar. The same applies to code, we've built these languages and libraries and all sorts of tools meaning that less and less skilled people can produce better and better results.
>Better code is always necessary in my opinion.We're not talking about better code. More difficult to maintain does not imply better and better does not imply more difficult to maintain. I'm asking if you think it's right for programmers to deliberately write unnecessarily hard to maintain (by that I mean hard to maintain for no other reason than this) code in order to make themselves less easy to replace?
>Building a system so that a creator (or in this case called a worker), is easily replaceable by others only serves the one who decides who gets replaced!And it serves the creator if he wants to be able to leave his work behind and the whole rest of the world if he dies. It's actually better for everyone if people make things that don't require them specifically to function.
>The individual has in turn no leverage against the one providing the workOf course you do. You get the same leverage any worker does and, as you've noticed, trying to make yourself more valuable by being irreplaceable is actually just making you less valuable in their eyes due to this. You won't increase your leverage this way.
>I do care if the system is build to replace workers.A system that wasn't would be far, far worse. Workers need to be replaced, people die or quit their jobs or whatever. We have to be able to accommodate for that or we're just building bad systems that can't cope with reality.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text. 