Tim Cook's Mass Coding Jobs Push Is Misplaced And Dangerous

Kids are socially dysfnnctional as it is without adding more apps, compliments of 2 million more  app creators!

In his recent (2 weeks ago) interview on the MSNBC special "Revolution' Apple CEO Tim Cook held court before a techie audience at a Chicago tech high school. Cook made some clearly outlandish claims - at least a sensible person watching would hope they are!- including 2 million coding jobs in the pipeline by 2025.  The other was a push to integrate coding into college science subjects - which has to be the dumbest idea I've heard since some loon proposed teaching creationism along side evolution.

"Wah! Wait, Mr. Copernicus! Coding IS great, it IS science!"

No, it is not. Well, ok, there is computer science - which I also took- but it is generally taken supplementary to actual science courses,. Most college physics, chemistry and biology curricula are packed as it is and many profs are hard pressed to cover all the required material, including labs, without adding coding.   And to make this idiotic plan a reality you'd basically have to double or triple the credit hours for each subject - e.g. for a 4 hour weekly General Physics course- you'd need to expand it to 8 or even 10 hours.  Note this is if Cook's plan of doing coding along side physics (or other subjects) is accepted. If, however, the student already knows programming and can do it - say for a numerical plasma model - it won't encroach on regular class time.

At the University of Alaska- Fairbanks, all science majors - certainly in the upper levels, also took Fortran but as a separate, ancillary course.  The coding (programming) then worked along side the physics topics, without encroaching on teaching time.   If a numerical model, say to replicate Boltzmann's velocity distribution, was assigned, it could be done and enhance class learning of the material. But it didn't compete with class material and detract from it.

Cook's other preposterous claim was to describe for Chris Hayes how 2 million coding jobs are on the horizon. I sincerely hope not! Personally, I believe the coding craze is over-hyped.                             Also we've beheld this sort of emphasis from Apple's CEOs before, e.g. in the person of Wunderkind Steve Jobs.  As the website, "Having the Conversation' reminded us:

"One of the earliest corporate efforts to get computers into schools was Apple’s “Kids Can’t Wait” program in 1982. Apple co-founder Steve Jobs personally lobbied Congress to pass the Computer Equipment Contribution Act, which would have allowed companies that donated computers to schools, libraries and museums to deduct the equipment’s value from their corporate income tax bills. While his efforts in Washington failed, he succeeded in his home state of California, where companies could claim a tax credit for 25 percent of the value of computer donations. The bill was clearly a corporate tax break, but it was framed in terms of educational gaps"

Cook's theme on 'Revolution' is therefore not new, other than that now the creation of "apps" dominates and is said to hold out the promise of more employment opportunity. "Lordy be, we gotta have more apps! We need 2 million more app coders!" No, we do not! The evidence already is ample to show that the proliferation of apps is having a destructive effect on the minds  of younger Americans and the political fabric and relationships of older ones.

But for Cook to suggest  2 million more  app jobs is a nightmare world.Why? Take a look at the recent (April 23) TIME article, 'The Masters of  Mind Control',  wherein we learn  how these app techies in Silicon Valley are turning kids' brains to mush and adults into slaves tethered to their smart phones. (See also the WSJ piece yesterday, 'The Instant Message Generation Gap', on how so many 20 and 30 -something workers are "elated to use apps like Slack so they no longer have to mind spelling or grammar."  It also noted how older bosses and employees disdain IM apps, and prefer email,, but have been pushed into doing IM - which means they are now "on call" at an instant, 24/7.  Pardon me, but this is bullshit insane.

Apart from the tethering there is the addiction aspect which Cook soft soaped in his MSNBC appearance. We learn the average American (not me, I don't own one): 

"Every day checks a smart phone 47 times on average or once every 19 minutes, spending roughly 5 hours peering at screens' silvery glow."

Adding: 

"There's no good consensus yet on what all this means for children's brains, adolescents' moods, and the future of our democratic institutions."

My bet is the consensus will ultimately be that all this screen time and app use is deleterious to mental and physical well being. Most disconcerting, a 2017  University of Texas study found that the mere presence of smart phones, down on the desk in front of users, undercuts the ability to perform cognitive tasks. That is, turning users into veritable dummies.  Then we also learn Silicon Valley's business model is to "keep us in thrall to our screens". 

The longer people are glued to an app - called  eyeball time - "the more money its creators make by selling our attention and access to personal data to advertisers and others."

In other words, we are not really customers or consumers but "products to be sold"

So 2 million more app  creators will likely increase the citizen to "product" mutation by ten fold not to mention the dumbing down and addiction effects. Exaggeration?  Not when former Google employee Tristan Harris, and Facebook investor Roger McNamee, (ibid.)  have flat out accused the tech giants of "deliberately creating addictive products without regard to human or social health."

And then we behold (p. 36)  the likes of Nir Eyal author of 'Hooked: How To Build Habit Forming Products'  who also runs a "Habit Summit" workshop , where participants pay up to $1,700 for the three day conference  where they are given "practical steps to design habit forming products."

THAT is why we don't need or want 2 million more app creators! Especially, as the "market" - devoid of any moral compass -  will almost always veer toward the lowest common denominator. E.g.  cheering the  most socially inimical (but profit generating) products whether video games like Grand Theft Auto  V where users get to  virtual rape assorted females, or the stupefying, zombie-inducing game of Candy crush.

Then there are the other nefarious aspects of apps, related to tracking users, especially kids. A new study by  UC Berkeley showed that of 6.000 apps in the Google Playstore a majority were in likely violation of the Children's  Online Privacy Protection Act.  Also the study found up to 57 percent may collect data without parental permission. This data includes GPS location and email addresses. These are then shared with advertisers.   As one of the study's lead authors noted on an NBC News segment two nights ago, the data is often used to "build dossiers on individuals. "   One of these apps that transmits GPS location is "Fun Kids Racing" which has been DL'd  50 million times.

Tim Cook made very little mention of any of this in his prime time performance, but why would he? If he can get two million more app makers in the pipeline to create two million more apps  - or even one thousand - that is tons of money in Apple's  already bloated pockets.   That leaves it to consumers to put the brakes on and cease allowing the techies to raid and hobble their minds, or render them virtual "coke" junkies always needing the next screen "hit".

On the other hand, if Apple, Google and others can come up with more (non-addictive, non-invasive) math and science apps I am all  for them. Say an app that can predict the result of any given chemical equation, before a student or teacher actually performs the lab experiment.   But hey, it's doubtful such  apps would rake in the profits that the addictive apps do.

See also:

http://theconversation.com/taking-a-second-look-at-the-learn-to-code-craze-86597

AARP Perpetuates Trope That The Only Good Codger Is A "Productive" (Or High Spending) Codger

It is amazing that when one travels to more socially progressive nations, especially strong on social insurance, or which embrace democratic socialist values,  there is not only greater happiness noticed, e.g.

• Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman on their social welfare state 

But also the belief that once workers retire, at whatever age, there is no longer a need for them to be either "productive" or "consumers".   Not so in the US of A, evidently.   Our nation is still dominated by capitalist and Calvinist memes that reinforce the canard that the only worthy citizens are those who contribute directly to the GDP, either as productive workers, or consumers (consumption is responsible for nearly 70% of the Gross Domestic Product in the U.S.).   To underscore this we have the bastardized "Pareto economic model" which defines economic efficiency in terms of "utils" - such that each dollar spent by the rich or investor class is always worth more than each dollar spent by the lower 50 percent or hardcore saver class, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/modern-economics-its-evil-basis-pareto.html

One of the most glaring examples being when, in 2003, the Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan - before the Senate Banking Committee  - averred  "Social Security benefits need to be cut to pay for Bush’s tax cuts."   What on Earth was the man thinking? Well, he's thinking on the basis of Pareto efficiency!

Social Security payments, especially with COLAs, do everything the Fed Chairman didn’t want. They pour more money into the economy, but not via productive labor or market investments. People receive their checks merely by existing and breathing day to day, and having paid into the system with FICA deductions.   In other words, the elderly are mostly unproductive drains who must be tolerated, say even if we can't get their Social Security monies converted to private investments, or their Medicare turned into "voucher" systems.

Now, this trope is resurrected in the latest AARP POV column by Jo Ann Jenkins ('Changing the World's Conversation About Aging-. p. 42, April , AARP Bulletin). She writes:

"Where leaders once looked at the growing aging population and saw only retirees, they are now beginning to see a new type of experienced, accomplished workforce. Where they once saw only expensive costs, they are now beginning to see an exploding consumer market that is bolstering our economies...no longer a growing pool of dependents."

In other words, reaffirming the trope that if an oldster isn't working and productive, or spending on all kinds of material bullshit:  RVs, new TVs,  gas-fired barbecues, new carpets, etc.  s/he is an "expensive  drain and "dependent".   Gasp!  Just a retiree! Imagine! But, WTF is wrong with just being a retiree, say after you've put in your dozens of years of hard work? And what is wrong with retiring and not having to be a spendthrift freak  either?   Only in America, the land of the almighty dollar, where profits are put before people,  can this type of degenerate thinking prosper and be sold to ...who? Well, mainly Neoliberals and closet Calvinists convinced the only good Medicare beneficiary is one who works 5 hours a day to pay for his medical treatments!

Be assured that Ms. Jenkins babble isn't the first on this issue. Some 7 or so years ago there appeared the cheery, upbeat Saturday Evening Post article, 'The New Retirement'. Therein we were  informed that "Americans are increasingly choosing to stay on the job after age 65 and money is only part of the story". Well, who'da thunk?

On the next page, we find the photos of two obviously well-provided for seniors at the top who were wealthy enough to actually retire early and buy an 85-acre farm where they "pursue their passion" by stuffing bouquets of flowers into canning jars and selling them. Well, nice work if you can get it! And, the couple informs us they're blissfully happy doing all that canning and insist: "If our health holds out we'll do this as long as we can".

My first reaction, to this well-heeled but dumb pair was, WTF!? The rate of human knowledge is doubling every 4 years and you choose to waste your remaining years canning flowers!

But that's just me and maybe my own priorities are wrong. I happen to think that in a limited life time humans owe it to themselves to learn as much about their world and cosmos as they possibly can. And that doesn't mean wasting time canning miniature flower bouquets if you don't have to!

Next we're introduced to a well-coiffed exec of 71 who has absolutely NO intentions of leaving her job as senior vice president of career services at the Ayers Group. As the lady exclaims:

"I just wouldn't know what to do with myself if I retired!"

 Well, uh, how about reading a few books...not just romantic pot boilers from Jacqueline Susanne, but areas of astronomy, psychology, philosophy to broaden that bean counter brain? How about even traveling to other places, like Switzerland, or Sweden or India? To gain something beyond a parochial perspective?

But evidently the thought never crosses her brain. She's obviously content to remain in her little corporate cubbyhole until she croaks.   But hey! At least she's "productive" - in line with Jo Ann Jenkins'  AARP crusade to remake the American image of aging - to think of us 70-plus geezers less as bums and more as.... workers and consumers!

Fortunately, a Mother Jones piece coming out at about the same time as the Post pabulum, thoroughly demolished its "working longer is better", e.g.

In other words, most older Americans (past 65)_ who do choose to stay on the job longer do so often at the expense of their health, and without much in the way of monetary return. 

What would it take to get me to rejoin the work force, at the age of 71 and with new (rising) PSA tests showing the prostate cancer may be coming back? Well, for starters,  a salary of at least $150-$200 an hour.

Oh, and that would be on a part time basis only and working at home. That alone would work given that I may not have that many years left, and I don't wish to spend them pushing paper, checking emails or "learning coding",  but rather learning more about the latest scientific and other research developments - some of which make it into my blog posts.

Btw, regarding the coding frenzy and "2 million more jobs" cited by Apple CEO Tim Cook (in his 'Revolutions' appearance on MSNBC last Friday) I will have more to say - rather naysay - in a coming post.

Oldsters, especially in their 70s - 80s deserve to be left alone by the media mavens and others who try to impose their own expectations on what an American retiree ought to be or do. If in fact millions wish to waste their time -  if they already have scads of $$ - canning flowers, or working as Walmart greeters,  then so be it. If that's what floats their boat, let 'em do it. But if others just wish to kick back and  read and learn, or attend university classes (even online) then let them do it. Stop hectoring us 70-somethings  to "go back to work" to satisfy the trope of the "on the go, productive" senior.  Or the high spending senior!