Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unnecessariat

morecrows.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 256 posts

Re: Unnecessariat

#161

Post by lmm »

labster wrote: post #124
robotresearcher wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overtime and wage increases are not going to help people who don't have jobs Did you miss this bit, or do you not believe it? >> Goldman Sachs says this will add 100,000 jobs, as employers try to avoid paying time and a half for overtime.[2]

It will create jobs but not increase wealth at lower levels. Obviously not, because the whole reason companies do it is to avoid paying more to workers. It will just create more situations where people need to work two jobs, without the benefit of being paid overtime. Still no benefit to a man in his mid 50s looking for a low-skill job, because the job he was trained in doesn't exist now. TL;DR yes, I don't believe i…

> It will create jobs but not increase wealth at lower levels. Obviously not, because the whole reason companies do it is to avoid paying more to workers.

It will increase wealth because the companies will still be paying more than they are today - if two 40-hour workers were cheaper than one 80-hour worker today, they'd be hiring the two 40-hour workers already.

Additionally going from one unemployed person and one person with an 80-hour job to two people with 40-hour jobs is probably a win, even if there were no extra money.

Re: Unnecessariat

#162

Post by prawn »

venomsnake wrote: post #160
prawn wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a realistic way to cap earnings or holdings? Has it been tried?

I had an idea of tax that is Tax = Income - Log(Income). That would help make the positive loopbacks milder. Well ... the big socialist experiments were not that successful in the last century. And the real growth of prosperity post WWII was due to a couple of hard to replicate factors. I guess it could be possible to mandate that no person could own more than 1/X of the national income. But won't pass unless after r…

The cap could still be high enough to motivate people, but effective enough that it limits the extreme hoarding we see now.

Re: Unnecessariat

#163

Post by danmaz74 »

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…

In theory, the best economic answer is to reduce the number of hours in a working week. In practice, it's very difficult to do that with competition from all over the world.

Re: Unnecessariat

#164

Post by studentrob »

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…

> We just don't need that many people to do all the stuff

Altman says the same thing [1]. It doesn't resonate with me.

This is the 21st century's version of the "let them eat cake" attitude [2]

People need more than food or money to survive. They need challenge and a way to be creative. People who don't have these things either (1) blame themselves and fall into depression despite having plenty of money, or (2) band together against those who tell them they're useless.

There will always be a need for people to do work: people need people.

The case for BI is hurt by the argument that some people are worthless. Some would say techies do not fully understand the needs of the poor [3], and that this alienates would-be supporters of BI.

[1] http://www.techinsider.io/sam-altman-praises-basic-income-on...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

[3] https://medium.com/the-development-set/silicon-valley-s-unch...

Re: Unnecessariat

#165

Post by thenomad »

studentrob wrote: post #155

> from where I live, the world has drifted away. We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary You're not unnecessary. Have you read your local candidates' views? Have you identified the ones with whom you agree? Have you ever run a voter registration drive to help elect them? Or suggested to friends who share your views that they run for local office? You're capable of making change. Putting so much energy into saying you…

Not entirely sure about the "shows you have the time" part.

It doesn't take that long to write a blog post, particularly not a blog post about something you clearly think about a lot and feel passionate about.

I'm not convinced that "you had some time to write a blog post" equates to "you have enough time to thoroughly research your local politicians, network with all your neighbours, and if necessary run an entire political campaign."

Re: Unnecessariat

#166

Post by studentrob »

EGreg wrote: post #126
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…

Little by little the argument that "taxation is theft" will come to sound like: "But it's not fair to demand that the hard working robot owners pay more in taxes to help the people too lazy to own their own robots."

Taxation is viewed as theft by people who don't feel represented.

It's part of the foundation of every sovereign country. They formed a new government to get better representation because they felt the old one was robbing them and not providing enough services.

I don't think the next revolution is around the corner. But, this election cycle, evidence of the widening wealth gap is more apparent.

Re: Unnecessariat

#167

Post by studentrob »

thenomad wrote: post #165
studentrob wrote: post #155

> from where I live, the world has drifted away. We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary You're not unnecessary. Have you read your local candidates' views? Have you identified the ones with whom you agree? Have you ever run a voter registration drive to help elect them? Or suggested to friends who share your views that they run for local office? You're capable of making change. Putting so much energy into saying you…

Not entirely sure about the "shows you have the time" part. It doesn't take that long to write a blog post, particularly not a blog post about something you clearly think about a lot and feel passionate about. I'm not convinced that "you had some time to write a blog post" equates to "you have enough time to thoroughly research your local politicians, network with all your neighbours, and if necessary run an entire p…

If a person can maintain a blog with ~40 posts over the last year and a half [1], they can afford to spend some time reading about their local candidates' positions as it relates to issues they care about. Networking is just a Facebook group or page away. People in less developed countries such as Cambodia are mounting campaigns this way [2], and they have lower wages, longer hours, and worse living and working conditions than Americans. People there live under a government that has the longest running dictator in Asia (31 years), yet they show up in droves every chance they get to vote.

I'm not attacking the author. I understand the feeling of worthlessness and its effect on your desire to do things. My point is she has the ability to do these things. And, nobody can bestow confidence upon you to act.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=sit...

[2] http://sea-globe.com/virtual-democracy-social-media-election...

Re: Unnecessariat

#168

Post by mindcrime »

vintermann wrote: post #150
mindcrime wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Taxation is theft" is true regardless of whether robots are employed or not. The fundamental issue is, simply, that it involves the use of force (or threat of use of force). As long as men with guns will come and arrest you if you don't "pay your taxes" then it is theft. No rhetorical flourishes or byzantine logic can alter that.

Matt Bruenig (yes, the guy who was recently hounded out of his job for calling a powerful Hillary supporter a scumbag) had an interesting description of this argument, or rather this series of arguments. First, he says, libertarians defend inequality through desert: * People should keep their money, they worked hard for it! Then Bruenig points out that there is capital income, which does not come from work. Capital w…

And this is certainly true, but if the common good is what we target, why not have a proper welfare state, a solid UBI funded by high taxes etc.?

Well, taxation is theft, so that is the easy answer to that. :-)

But to dig a little deeper... a UBI is an interesting concept, and especially so when one considers a future where most, or even all, human labor becomes unneeded. In a world of 100% technological unemployment, it does seem that we're going to require a different system than what we have now. But I don't think just saying "have an UBI" is much of an answer, because - IMO - the entire fundamental basis of the economy will be so radically different that we can't even imagine how the UBI will be funded and how the economy will work.

I keep running through scenarios, trying to come up with a scenario that makes sense, even hand-waving around the "initiation of force" issue temporarily, and it always seems to come out looking like a Ponzi scheme in the end.

Luckily, I think we're still quite a ways away from the total obviation of need for human labor, so we have some time to figure it out. Well, hopefully anyway.

Re: Unnecessariat

#169

Post by mindcrime »

tzs wrote: post #159
mindcrime wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Taxation is theft" is true regardless of whether robots are employed or not. The fundamental issue is, simply, that it involves the use of force (or threat of use of force). As long as men with guns will come and arrest you if you don't "pay your taxes" then it is theft. No rhetorical flourishes or byzantine logic can alter that.

Ben Franklin nicely explained what is wrong with that view (letter to Robert Morris, 1783-12-25): ---- begin quote ---- The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Intere…

Bastiat provides a nice counter point to all that. But I'm too lazy to copy and paste the whole thing here. I'll just suggest reading The Law and/or That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen if you haven't, for another take on things. Note though that there's a lot of subtlety to this whole thing, and Bastiat appears to allow for some notion of lawful taxation, but it's pretty clear that he considers most such transfer of wealth to be what he calls "lawful plunder" and he argues rather eloquently against it.

Re: Unnecessariat

#170

Post by mindcrime »

peterwoo wrote: post #149
mindcrime wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Taxation is theft" is true regardless of whether robots are employed or not. The fundamental issue is, simply, that it involves the use of force (or threat of use of force). As long as men with guns will come and arrest you if you don't "pay your taxes" then it is theft. No rhetorical flourishes or byzantine logic can alter that.

Theft is when I take property which I have no right to take possession of. It doesn't matter if guns or force are involved, or fraud, or sneakiness, etc. If taxation is theft, then it is theft even if it's unenforced and involves no threats of force. Why is taxation theft?

Why is taxation theft?

Because you're taking something you have no right to take possession of. And you're right, "theft" is a broader category of actions, but I don't consider that distinction relevant here. Eg, the State doesn't (yet, AFAIK) sneak into you home and take your property without your knowledge, in the name of taxation. Although they DO do some other pretty sneaky things, like civil asset forfeiture, but that's a separate issue, IMO.

The thing with what we call "paying your taxes" in the popular vernacular is clearly a case where the State wants something you have (the spoils of your labor, if we limit this to Income Tax for the time being) and if you aren't inclined to give it to them, they use force to take it. If you were willing to pay it without the need for coercion, then it wouldn't be theft.

And here's the rub, that makes this all so ironic: I expect most people would "pay their taxes" to at least some extent, even without the need for coercion. This is especially so IF the agency requesting said payment is actually demonstrating its value clearly.

Post reply on HN