Unnecessariat • Hacker News Board

Re: Unnecessariat

#91

Post by hueving » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:03 AM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #77

hueving wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are motivated for an ideology it's rarely for short term self interest like you imply. If that were true there wouldnt be any rich people voting for Democrats, which isn't the case. With first hand account of a family member that would benefit from Obamacare but didn't vote for Obama, it was a matter of disagreeing with many other policies. E.g. You wouldn't vote for a politician promoting the elimination of…

> If that were true there wouldnt be any rich people voting for Democrats, which isn't the case. I don't know about that. You can be completely self-interested, wealthy, and still vote liberal/progressive Democrat if you think the alternative is a Reign of Terror or Red October. Or, to dial it back a bit from that, if you think progressive policies will grow the economy of the nation in the long term (and, by extensi…

>You can be completely self-interested, wealthy, and still vote liberal/progressive Democrat if you think the alternative is a Reign of Terror or Red October.

The same logic applies the other direction. A party is promising free health care, but in their view that comes at a cost of a massive government that oversees every aspect of their life. Either that or they think it's fundamentally unsustainable and will lead to massive losses elsewhere.

Basically if you think people vote against their self interest, you don't understand the perspective from which they are voting. To be baffled by it is to fail to recognize your own ignorance.

Re: Unnecessariat

#92

Post by hellbanner » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:24 AM UTC

Automation can automate manual labor jobs the easiest. Maintaining cities, crafting medicine, colonizing space -- these are important jobs that humanity has.

I think the bigger issue is that most people don't have resources to pursue training to tackle this kind of work.

There are so many problems left to solve in the world it's a joke to say "there isn't work to be done"

Re: Unnecessariat

#93

Post by platz » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:27 AM UTC

relevant:

"Bessen argues that during times of technological innovation, it often takes years before workers see higher wages from productivity increases. Bessen stresses the importance of the standardization of education on the job as workers adapt to new technology."

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/james_bessen_on.htm... James Bessen on Learning by Doing

Re: Unnecessariat

#94

Post by mwcampbell » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:31 AM UTC

seizethecheese wrote: post #88

labster wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the point of the article. The $15 minimum wage will most likely help the precariat. This is a good thing. But it will do little if anything to help the unnecessariat. > ... no matter how tenuous, the precariat had jobs. The new dying Americans, the ones killing themselves on purpose or with drugs, don’t. Don’t, won’t, and know it. Overtime and wage increases are not going to help people who do…

> But it will do little if anything to help the unnecessariat. A higher minimum wage will most likely hurt the unnecessariat. One way to think of a $15 minimum wage is a prohibition on anyone who's labor is worth less than $15/hr from working. Not only will it make the current unecessariat's situation worse, it will likely expand it's ranks.

Makes me wonder if we should eliminate the minimum wage altogether.

Re: Unnecessariat

#95

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

labster wrote: post #56

Animats wrote: post #15

From the article: "We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what’s worst of all, everybody who matters seems basically pretty okay with that. " That's it right there. We just don't need that many people to do all the stuff. Some of that is imports, but not all, or even most, of it. Get behind the $15 minimum wage. The…

You seem to have missed the point of the article. The $15 minimum wage will most likely help the precariat. This is a good thing. But it will do little if anything to help the unnecessariat. > ... no matter how tenuous, the precariat had jobs. The new dying Americans, the ones killing themselves on purpose or with drugs, don’t. Don’t, won’t, and know it. Overtime and wage increases are not going to help people who do…

[deleted]

Re: Unnecessariat

#96

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #87

yummyfajitas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bring learning from a distant shore! Over in India we've found an economic use for all those who will be useless! https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_ou...

So the solution is that the US should abolish the minimum wage and make it possible to cheaply bribe your way out of following regulations, so that middle class people can afford servants again?

Yes, we should abolish the minimum wage, and if necessary directly subsidize the poor with EITC and similar programs. That will reduce disincentives.

Of course, if we really cared about reducing poverty and inequality, we'd just skip the EITC and open our borders - but obviously the massive amounts of inequality between an American and an Indian are far less important than the relatively small amounts of inequality between two Americans.

Another solution is a basic job - basically a basic income, but you need to work for it (e.g., fixing our crumbling infrastructure and providing free child care for working mothers).

Re: Unnecessariat

#97

Post by qrendel » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #26

devishard wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're really putting yourself in their shoes. For most people, things are were better for them before required, high-cost health plans. Most people don't get seriously sick in a given year; that's why health insurance works at all. And for those with required health insurance, it doesn't really help. Take me as an example: I'm 29 in NY and the healthcare plans I have available to me basically fall into…

At 15000, you are making https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2015-annual-update-hhs-pov... ), and are eligible for medicaid, or large subsidies in other states. The details really matter here, and my sense (though I'm very open to correction) is that the people who the ACA is most burdensome for are high enough income that they qualify for smaller subsidies, but still can't afford healthcare.

>are eligible for medicaid

Depends on your state. Where I live, you can't get medicaid, regardless of income, unless you're elderly or disabled (not sure if low-income parents qualify). Thanks, Republicans.

Re: Unnecessariat

#98

Post by qrendel » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:49 AM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #30

aston wrote: post #4

This is a pretty great personal account, and it helps me tremendously in my goal of understanding this group of people who feel left out and overlooked by their government. However, it's also a good demonstration of how people find ways to rationalize acting against their own self-interest. One example: The author observes that the unnecessariat is having lots of economic value extracted from them, e.g. from required…

So why didn't they all vote for Obamacare and for the public option, subsidized by higher taxes? Because there was nobody to vote for who offered that. McCain's proposal was to deny that the problem existed. Obama's proposal was Obamacare without an individual mandate. Clinton's proposal was Obamacare with an individual mandate. Those were the only entrees on the proverbial menu. No candidate ran on a public option,…

The public option was specifically killed off by insurance industry lobbying by Karen Ignagni, as were reductions in Medicare drug prices by the equivalent guy for the pharmaceutical industry. As I understand it, Obama wanted a public option, but had enough difficulty getting Obamacare passed at all, and those sacrifices (along with requiring the individual mandate) were the price of preventing hundreds of millions of dollars of anti-Obamacare attack ads from those two industry lobbies.

I'm not sure how much more to the story there is than that, but for reference, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/obamasdeal/

Re: Unnecessariat

#99

Post by Animats » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:53 AM UTC

api wrote: post #49

Animats wrote: post #15

From the article: "We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what’s worst of all, everybody who matters seems basically pretty okay with that. " That's it right there. We just don't need that many people to do all the stuff. Some of that is imports, but not all, or even most, of it. Get behind the $15 minimum wage. The…

I feel like calling citation needed on imports. Outsourcing is massive, and far larger than automation.

From the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco:

[1] http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic...

Re: Unnecessariat

#100

Post by deciplex » Wed, May 25, 2016, 2:53 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #91

deciplex wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that were true there wouldnt be any rich people voting for Democrats, which isn't the case. I don't know about that. You can be completely self-interested, wealthy, and still vote liberal/progressive Democrat if you think the alternative is a Reign of Terror or Red October. Or, to dial it back a bit from that, if you think progressive policies will grow the economy of the nation in the long term (and, by extensi…

>You can be completely self-interested, wealthy, and still vote liberal/progressive Democrat if you think the alternative is a Reign of Terror or Red October. The same logic applies the other direction. A party is promising free health care, but in their view that comes at a cost of a massive government that oversees every aspect of their life. Either that or they think it's fundamentally unsustainable and will lead…

> Basically if you think people vote against their self interest, you don't understand the perspective from which they are voting. To be baffled by it is to fail to recognize your own ignorance.

Didn't you just write that people can be motivated by ideology instead of self-interest?

Yes, you can be altruistic (essentially the opposite of self-interested) and decide not to support universal health care, or basic income, or whatever, because you believe it will be a net loss for society. This line of reasoning is pretty common in conservative circles, in fact, and I didn't consider it worth mentioning.

I suspect you are working with a definition of "self-interest" that is so broad as to lose most of it's meaning. I take it to mean the opposite of altruism: working to help others at the expense of your own material well-being (or, perhaps, just without seeing any personal gain). My point is that you need not be altruistic to support these policies (though it does seem to help), if you think enacting them will improve or defend your well-being.