Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky • Hacker News Board

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#211

Post by pink_dinner » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 5:18 AM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #158

djrogers wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about this. In your ideal above, how would one go about pursuing their dreams without an ability to earn excess capital through labor? For example, my goal is to have a nice house on 50-100 acres. I also really enjoy jet skiing and boating with my family - especially from a nice lakefront rental with a private dock. I can't fathom how I would pursue those goals in a 'leisure society'... Or as a prole woul…

An approach I've considered is, that the living allocation by default is just comfortable. You'd be able to get allocated a city apartment or a rural house. But this is coupled to a delegation based "liquid" direct world democracy where you can either direct your surplus yourself, or delegate it to someone (or some organization). And recursively they can delegate it too. So suppose you were Elon Musk and you said, I…

your approach would devolve into basically a bartering system of labor for goods. Something we had many centuries before currency exchange.

I think our current system is still better.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#212

Post by danjayh » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #107

deegles wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere that the amount of people employed in the transportation industry is roughly equal to the tech industry. If 75% or more become redundant, where will they go? Certainly not the restaurant industry... One theory I have about all of the coding "boot camps" popping up is that they are preparing for an exodus of people from the next job sector to be automated/eliminated (auto-lated?).

No, coding boot camps are just capitalizing on the idea that there is a shortcut to the high wages some people earn in the tech industry. It's not "preparing for" anything, it's trying to exploit a present market opportunity.

I teach CS classes at a community college when I have the time. Our CC has a 2 year program; having taught classes in the 1st semester and the 4th semester, I have noticed that the 1st semester classes are larger than the 4th semester classes, much larger. This school offers eight sections of the intro programming class, and not more than one section of any top level class (Java, .net, and C++). The top level class sizes are also smaller, and not offered every semester (the intro class is). Net, I'd say that around 3/4 of the students fail out, quit, or change majors.

I've seen students bust their asses to get it. Spend time with tutors, countless hours with the book, with study groups, and other students and still not get it. I've also seen students sleep through most of their classes and pound out not only the lab, but also their entire three week assignment during the lab time.

Anyway, my point is that trying to get a tech degree is far from a sure thing, and for many people, something that they may not be able to finish. It takes a certain kind of thought process to write good software, and while some of it can be taught, I firmly believe that innate ability is equally important. Just like you couldn't teach me to be a good salesman if you had to, some people can't be taught to do tech jobs.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#213

Post by elcapitan » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 5:42 AM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #130

karmacondon wrote: post #111

I think the fundamental purpose of a business is to accomplish a task, not to employ people. For example, I don't care how many people are employed to keep hackernews running. I'm thankful for their efforts, but I don't care if it's one person, ten people, or one bot. Or how much any of them get paid. The only thing that consumers and businesses care about is the end result. If a job can be done by a machine, that's…

Business is a social construct and we can un-construct it if it proves no longer to be the socially valuable way to do things. It's there to serve humans. if it doesn't do that, it's a parasite, drag it out behind the shed and shoot it.

The problem with "dragging out behind the shed and shooting it" is that the people who propagate it usually start with other people. Thanks 20th century, but no thanks.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#214

Post by refurb » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

sharkjacobs wrote: post #202

oconnore wrote: post #3

Here is the critical section of the article: > What about the workers thrown out of jobs by the new robo-waiters? Many would get new jobs, though the way this would work is often ignored. > Most restaurants would keep longer hours (they're paying for the rent and the robots anyway), meaning many workers would get a raise and change shifts. No, the workers are now fired. They don't get a raise. > The advanced robo-res…

remember a hundred years ago, when 90% of Americans were employed in agriculture? Remember when tractors were invented, and now only 2% of americans work in agriculture? Yeah, it sucks that 88% of americans are unemployed now.

I was thinking the same thing. Just replace whatever job people are saying will be automated with {horse shoe maker, blacksmith,farmer} and you'd swear the current discussion was taking place in the 1900's.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#215

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 5:57 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #200

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not at all. I think in all the comments here, there is an egregious error. The error is in totally ignoring the concept of economics or failing the recognize the reality of scarcity. It's not a "social construct"in any non-trivial sense. People throw that "social construct" thing around as if it is at all relevant. You could say the "law of identity" is a social construct and you don't accept ... Ok that's fine,…

That's absurdity. If economics were the end all, be all, we'd live in a planned economy dominated by a small cartel of businesses. Society rejected that 100+ years ago. Recall that until recently, the folks concerning themselves with money were not at the top of the social heap -- with good reason.

Based on your usage, this is totally wrong notion of "absurdity." What I wrote is actually correct.

I'm not sure what "economics were the end all be all means" but economics is a method by which to understand the "world" under the circumstance of scarcity. I suggest reading a little more of it; it's an interesting topic.

Actually, I don't think this makes any sense. Economics is not about describing a perfect society or something. Don't be silly. :)

It's about understanding reality. Agents engage in activity described by economic principles under the condition of scarcity.

I know that seems sad or something I guess to some. It's like climate change doesn't care if you believe it's real or not.

It's just the way it is ... under the condition of scarcity.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#216

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 6:06 AM UTC

x5n1 wrote: post #113

karmacondon wrote: post #111

I think the fundamental purpose of a business is to accomplish a task, not to employ people. For example, I don't care how many people are employed to keep hackernews running. I'm thankful for their efforts, but I don't care if it's one person, ten people, or one bot. Or how much any of them get paid. The only thing that consumers and businesses care about is the end result. If a job can be done by a machine, that's…

Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives. So yes as governments you do expect exactly that. You also expect to reduce disparity between the rich and poor. Why? Because you don't want people to revolt and create chaos. If unemployment goes up too much and there are no jobs, people will revolt and violence will occur... in which people will probably destroy your peaceful stable life... your fa…

Keep in mind too that the idea of "full employment" doesn't mean 100% employment, it's a technical term.

I will just say, your view is a little overly antagonistic. Keep this in mind, if they government created too much artificiality in the market, which seems to be what you are asking for, this would not solve the people's problems.

Under your view, the government might as well print countless amounts of currency and just distribute it without any regard to it's value.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#217

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 6:10 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #145

drodgers wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government could achieve full-employment by drafting everyone or paying them to dig ditches then fill them in again, but that would be really wasteful. If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. If the economy can't find full-time roles for some people, then we as a society — though t…

> If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do then those people who cannot be useful will not survive - it's as simple as that. It takes resources to keep someone alive, and that resource must come from somewhere. I'd live for basic income to be viable, but i highly doubt it's viable, given that it amounts to altruism (from those people who own the means of production/automation). We'd have to have free…

It's like there are extremists on both side of this conversation. :)

To say those people that cannot be useful will not survive is sort of despicable and naive. Someone on the other side made a point about revolts and if we carried this view so far, I guess something like that would happen and make normal economic activity untenable.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#218

Post by eanzenberg » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 6:15 AM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #130

karmacondon wrote: post #111

I think the fundamental purpose of a business is to accomplish a task, not to employ people. For example, I don't care how many people are employed to keep hackernews running. I'm thankful for their efforts, but I don't care if it's one person, ten people, or one bot. Or how much any of them get paid. The only thing that consumers and businesses care about is the end result. If a job can be done by a machine, that's…

Business is a social construct and we can un-construct it if it proves no longer to be the socially valuable way to do things. It's there to serve humans. if it doesn't do that, it's a parasite, drag it out behind the shed and shoot it.

Hi Venezuela, nice to meet you.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#219

Post by zurn » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 6:30 AM UTC

tmptmp wrote: post #141

JulianMorrison wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business is a social construct and we can un-construct it if it proves no longer to be the socially valuable way to do things. It's there to serve humans. if it doesn't do that, it's a parasite, drag it out behind the shed and shoot it.

The Marxists and communists have tried doing that thing many times and have failed spectacularly. Business based market economy is the only (till now) successful and socially most beneficial type of society that has ever existed. I upvoted the OP because he/she/it (it may be a bot) has put this thing in clear words.

European social democracies have made it work by continuously re-constructing it. Employees and citizens of the welfare state are at the table when negotiating how to set rules for the managed capitalism. Check out Sweden for example.

Re: Will minimum wage hikes lead to a huge boost in automation? Only if we're lucky

#220

Post by vacri » Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 6:46 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #192

drodgers wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government could achieve full-employment by drafting everyone or paying them to dig ditches then fill them in again, but that would be really wasteful. If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. If the economy can't find full-time roles for some people, then we as a society — though t…

If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. They could fix our crumbling infrastructure, provide child care for working women, in-home care for our elderly, reduce overcrowding by making prisons larger, build community gardens, or a hundred other popular left wing causes. The claim that we…

> They could fix our crumbling infrastructure... reduce overcrowding by making prisons larger

Unskilled people make crappy engineers and construction workers.

> provide child care

These days, child care workers need a lot of paperwork and a bit of training. Not to mention that you kind've have to be good with kids; it's not really a job just anyone can do.

> in-home care for our elderly

And this is in the same bucket. Forcing people into a caring role makes for bad carers.

> build community gardens

This one could work... but then again, how many gardens can you have, and how many folks would they support the work for?

Throw in also that all of these things are not 'free labour'. You still need to manage and train that staff, and you're going to have higher overhead costs because you'll have higher turnover. It's not as simple as just saying "labour = free, so go do something".