On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote: > Do you agree this is already what we see in Free Software: > that wages are approaching zero (much work done gratis)?
The wages aren't approaching zero; rather, programmers subsidize their own time with their own money. Some is still paying.
As you said Bryan, some is still paying. If you need a project done, and you don't have the skills for it, you must pay someone else, or convince someone to give their time. In addition to that, there is open source software that pays.
Start up costs are also a lot lower. The only real cost is your time, there is no specialized equipment needed, that costs money. This is not the same for DiyBio, RepRap or other projects. It's more affordable to program in your spare time. As a child, programming was the only avenue that I had, because I had no money. I just had to go to the library, and read a book and type on a computer.
There still needs to be a flow of money with more physical projects. You need labor to build it, labor to maintain it, and constant material to feed it. A single open sourced machine will not "put maximum competition and minimum wages", because there are a billion different fields that will pick up the displaced labor.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote: > > Do you agree this is already what we see in Free Software: > > that wages are approaching zero (much work done gratis)?
> The wages aren't approaching zero; rather, programmers subsidize their > own time with their own money. Some is still paying.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Manufacturing" group. > To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
Discussion subject changed to "[Open Manufacturing] Source Control - Freedom through Sharing The Open Factory - an Open Hardware factory in an Irish Ecovillage." by Devin Balkind
I know dozens of people who get paid good money to configure and deploy free/libre/opensource software. The more powerful the tools, the more value a laborer can create, the higher the wage they can demand. Am I missing something?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Atrus <atr...@gmail.com> wrote: > As you said Bryan, some is still paying. If you need a project done, and > you don't have the skills for it, you must pay someone else, or convince > someone to give their time. In addition to that, there is open source > software that pays.
> Start up costs are also a lot lower. The only real cost is your time, there > is no specialized equipment needed, that costs money. This is not the same > for DiyBio, RepRap or other projects. It's more affordable to program in > your spare time. As a child, programming was the only avenue that I had, > because I had no money. I just had to go to the library, and read a book and > type on a computer.
> There still needs to be a flow of money with more physical projects. You > need labor to build it, labor to maintain it, and constant material to feed > it. A single open sourced machine will not "put maximum competition and > minimum wages", because there are a billion different fields that will pick > up the displaced labor.
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote: >> > Do you agree this is already what we see in Free Software: >> > that wages are approaching zero (much work done gratis)?
>> The wages aren't approaching zero; rather, programmers subsidize their >> own time with their own money. Some is still paying.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Open Manufacturing" group. >> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
in a context where, 1) capital owns software companies, not users or producers 2) the free software is mostly useful to producers of software, i.e. coders, not users who lack the knowledge to improve the software.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote: > > Do you agree this is already what we see in Free Software: > > that wages are approaching zero (much work done gratis)?
> The wages aren't approaching zero; rather, programmers subsidize their > own time with their own money. Some is still paying.
Discussion subject changed to "Source Control - Freedom through Sharing The Open Factory - an Open Hardware factory in an Irish Ecovillage." by John Griessen
> A single open sourced machine will not "put maximum competition and minimum wages",
> because there are a billion different fields
> that will pick up the displaced labor.
Yes, it will take lots of time to see a change. but then the rules will be different also. Writing about economics takes creativity since there's nothing provable -- it's always a target that moved already. Normal business is about satisfying a current need as fast as possible before it evaporates and you're left "out" in musical chairs because you didn't have a replacement product to sell ready when one goes obsolete.
Open Hardware developers are not afraid of losing any one magnificent idea. They get more every time they sleep and dream. So, they naturally have replacement products ready for when some go obsolete.
They can still get caught by batch size though, and that's where personal 3DP comes in. It's not a macroeconomic theory -- it's liberating makers from large batch size requirements and inventory tax. Ordinary folks are not any more likely to 3D print than to do woodworking or auto tuning/racing/restorations as hobby.
Discussion subject changed to "[Open Manufacturing] Source Control - Freedom through Sharing The Open Factory - an Open Hardware factory in an Irish Ecovillage." by Devin Balkind
Open source CMSs allow people who don't code to earn a living building websites, so in that case, free software benefits the 'users' more than it benefits the coders, especially the coders who used to get paid to reinvent the CMS over and over again.
I think the trend in open source projects is that the skill level of developers/coers continues to increase while the skills level of deployers/users continues to decrease. You'll earn the most money by operating in between - as someone who spend most of their time deploying systems but also spends time their time developing the code so they understand the project's capabilities and trajectory.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2...@gmail.com>wrote:
> in a context where, 1) capital owns software companies, not users or > producers 2) the free software is mostly useful to producers of software, > i.e. coders, not users who lack the knowledge to improve the software.
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote: >> > Do you agree this is already what we see in Free Software: >> > that wages are approaching zero (much work done gratis)?
>> The wages aren't approaching zero; rather, programmers subsidize their >> own time with their own money. Some is still paying.
When the users are allowed at-cost access to the sources of production (without paying more than the real costs of that access) they will start tinkering and after a bit can fix and build all they need ... when allowed to cooperate.
This is true for software as much as it is true for aquaculture.
When the users own the sources of production, they can be paid with the product itself.
In that scenario, there is no sale of the product, and so there is also no profit and no reason to use money at all!?
I'm just saying many would be willing to work for a co-owned Farm for a wage of food and shelter never receiving another Federal Reserve Note.
<de...@sarapisfoundation.org> wrote: > Open source CMSs allow people who don't code to earn a living building > websites, so in that case, free software benefits the 'users' more than it > benefits the coders, especially the coders who used to get paid to reinvent > the CMS over and over again.
Even in the case of CMS's (like Drupal and Wordpress for instance) you have teams of people who program, maintain and configure the base applications. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours go into the CMS that makes it possible for a non-programmer to build a website.
> I think the trend in open source projects is that the skill level of > developers/coers continues to increase while the skills level of > deployers/users continues to decrease. You'll earn the most money by > operating in between - as someone who spend most of their time deploying > systems but also spends time their time developing the code so they > understand the project's capabilities and trajectory.
I can agree that this could be a current trend. However, I think it is untenable (programmers do more and more, users learn less and less), and that we're still faced with an urgent need for a significant amount of people to obtain literacies of participatory media, abstract concepts of programming (people don't have to become programmers, but they will benefit from understanding how programs and computers work in an abstract way), literacies of cooperation and collaboration, commons concepts, knowledge about food and energy systems, etc.
From my perspective, access to tools and information is not enough of catalyze change. Schemes of wage and labor also generally spin their wheels in the mud of reality. People have to see how it applies to their daily lives, and it's gonna take more than just a few of us at the fringe.
Patrick, I agree with what you're saying but think that 'at cost access' is easier said than done. I'd imagine "cost" will become harder to quantify as 'market rates' for material and labor inputs become more obscure and less based in the conventional marketplace.
Sam, I agree that this situation looks "untenable." Each of us should cultivate a generalized knowledge of all the systems we use, but we should also celebrate elegant systems that fulfill our needs and allow us to use our favorite skills. In other words - and I'm not sure this will make a lot of sense - I'd like to code with watercolors.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Devin Balkind > <de...@sarapisfoundation.org> wrote: > > Open source CMSs allow people who don't code to earn a living building > > websites, so in that case, free software benefits the 'users' more than > it > > benefits the coders, especially the coders who used to get paid to > reinvent > > the CMS over and over again.
> Even in the case of CMS's (like Drupal and Wordpress for instance) you > have teams of people who program, maintain and configure the base > applications. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours go into the > CMS that makes it possible for a non-programmer to build a website.
> > I think the trend in open source projects is that the skill level of > > developers/coers continues to increase while the skills level of > > deployers/users continues to decrease. You'll earn the most money by > > operating in between - as someone who spend most of their time deploying > > systems but also spends time their time developing the code so they > > understand the project's capabilities and trajectory.
> I can agree that this could be a current trend. However, I think it is > untenable (programmers do more and more, users learn less and less), > and that we're still faced with an urgent need for a significant > amount of people to obtain literacies of participatory media, abstract > concepts of programming (people don't have to become programmers, but > they will benefit from understanding how programs and computers work > in an abstract way), literacies of cooperation and collaboration, > commons concepts, knowledge about food and energy systems, etc.
> From my perspective, access to tools and information is not enough of > catalyze change. Schemes of wage and labor also generally spin their > wheels in the mud of reality. People have to see how it applies to > their daily lives, and it's gonna take more than just a few of us at > the fringe.
