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

171–180 of 256 posts

Re: Unnecessariat

#171

Post by mindcrime »

nhaehnle wrote: post #142
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.

If your definition of "theft" is "taking something by (threat of) force", then (1) private property at least of land clearly is theft, (2) one could even go further and argue that some forms of taxation aren't theft, and (3) police are regularly involved in theft even while doing the right thing. The key is in "taking something": there is a baseline state of the world against we're comparing the current status quo. F…

If your definition of "theft" is "taking something by (threat of) force",

That is not my definition of theft. Theft by force (or threat of force) is a subset of theft in the more general sense.

For point (1), there is clearly a historical baseline in which no land was owned by anybody, and all land was equally accessible to all. Then people started to make claims that some part of land was theirs, and that they had the right to exclude others from it - if necessary by force. They took something from others by (threat of) force - hence committing theft according to your definition, and this theft is enshrined by modern property law.

If no land was owned by anyone, then taking a chunk of land is not taking it from "others". Its taking something which was previously unowned.

The origin and nature of property rights IS an interesting discussion, but it's really a red herring here. Consider this: You live in the proto-world with no land ownership. You select a piece of land that is unoccupied and unowned, and you build a home on it and start a garden. Later, somebody else comes along and says "I want your home and your garden for myself". Would you argue that you have no right to say "bugger off" to that person? Are you saying you have no right to defend that home and garden, that you worked on, toiled, and cultivated?

If not, how do you propose mitigating this conflict?

Re: Unnecessariat

#172

Post by studentrob »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #79
clock_tower wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good points. My instinctive rejoinder to "the age of the corporation" is to ask how many bayonets the corporation has, but the answer is increasingly "not zero." This also causes me to notice something else: what if neo-fascism and its Asian counterparts are becoming popular precisely as a way to coerce corporations -- because nothing less than that can bring them under control? This sounds very plausible, and i…

That's a really good point. Perhaps the Achilles heel of mass democracy is that it is easily manipulated in a capitalist economy where our interactions with the world can be exclusively private. Think about it: we can spend our lives at home, work, and the grocery store. Except they deliver. And so do restaurants. And so does Amazon, so that's everything. Can't deliver love but you can download and swipe, good luck.…

> Perhaps the Achilles heel of mass democracy is that it is easily manipulated in a capitalist economy where our interactions with the world can be exclusively private.

That's not a problem with democracy and capitalism. That's how people learn. We learn something and form an opinion about it.

The opposite is censorship, and we know that doesn't make people happy

In a democracy, society chooses where they're comfortable making sacrifices. We have free speech and also decided that libel and impersonation are punishable.

Even corporations have checks and balances that aren't codified. Every year, corporations find that the public cares about some new transgression that wasn't a problem the previous year. Bad press isn't good for oil companies, Apple, Goldman Sachs, etc, and the populace seeks to elect people who will be tougher on these businesses going forward. Failing that, the companies themselves realize they aren't all powerful.

The system is not perfect and was never supposed to be. Things are always changing. The trick is to give everyone their due attention despite their racial or economic background. I think the US does a good job of it compared to other nations. We can do better, and we may learn during this election cycle that we haven't paid enough attention to a widening wealth gap.

Re: Unnecessariat

#173

Post by todd8 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #117
seizethecheese wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Elasticity in the US labor market is much closer to 0 than -1. Not only has this been studied, it's been studied enough that we can do pretty solid meta-studies to find bias is the studies: http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/studying-the-studies-on-the-... I wouldn't advocate a jump straight to a $15 minimum wage because for sufficiently large MW jumps the elasticity has to start heading for -1 (and beyond -- that's jus…

> Not only has this been studied, it's been studied enough that we can do pretty solid meta-studies to find bias is the studies.

The cited blog is by the CEPR, a leftist/progressive think-tank, this doesn't make their conclusion wrong, however, my reading of the graph present on the blog looks more like there is a negative elasticity, with respect to the demand for labor at higher wages, indicated by the meta-study. The graph looks like it might be as large as -0.1, suggesting that doubling of the minimum wage could have a noticeable negative impact on employment. Not all studies show that happening, but a greater number do.

Re: Unnecessariat

#174

Post by sokoloff »

dredmorbius wrote: post #125
labster wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should. And replace it with universal basic income. Also: GP makes an excellent point, which I should have thought of myself.

Replacing minimum wage with UBI shifts employment subsidies to the same firms which are now pressing their workers to apply for welfare benefits whilst pocketing massive profits, including the wealthiest family in the US, the Waltons, of WalMart. Another model is UBI and government as employer of last resort (or a equivalent strong labour movement). If there is an employer who can absorb all applicants at a minimum w…

> If you're operating a business which cannot afford to pay a worker what they need to survive, you're not operating a business, you're operating a charity supported by your workforce (or social welfare systems).

Likewise, if you are a working-age individual who is only capable of creating value at a rate less the minimum wage, you aren't looking for a job, you're looking for charity dressed up like a job. (That's fine as a social policy, but when that charity is expected to come private sources, it's a very unstable employer/employee relationship. The minute affordable automation comes along or the business revenues take a dip, such charity cases will be the first to be let go or have their hours cut, because they're fundamentally unprofitable in the normal condition.)

Re: Unnecessariat

#175

Post by studentrob »

DenisM wrote: post #23

I often say to my fellow engineers that software engineering is a profession of destroying jobs. There doesn't seem to be any follow up discussion though, everyone just nods and moves on to the next subject. What can we do? There is no stopping the train of automation.

> What can we do? There is no stopping the train of automation.

Spend a year or two teaching people to program. It'll give your brain a nice rest

It won't solve the world's problems but that's something you can do as an individual.

Or you can read about your local politicians and start a Facebook page to support the ones whose views you share.

Job functions have been changing since the cracking of coconuts with rocks. There is no need to stop this train. Teaching helps society advance. If we spend some time teaching programming, whether formally or informally, I think that counts for a lot.

Re: Unnecessariat

#176

Post by studentrob »

mousa wrote: post #101
snerbles wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that us as engineers either partake in pushing these souls into oblivion or join them. I see no way out unless we invent an economic use for those who will be useless.

No economic use is not oblivion. Being useless needs to somehow be destigmatized while not being encouraged. It's not the end of the world, there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others, there are some happy people with special needs who we don't try to make work and retired people who still enjoy life. There's no reason we can't have people being happy doing hobbies some day if we can get…

> there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others

Monks choose to live that way. Most people need more than money to survive. They need challenge and creativity, too.

> Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet.

Scandinavian countries have had better social programs for years. It's why the wealthy in the US fear discussion of things like basic income. They don't want to pay the tax rates of those countries.

Re: Unnecessariat

#177

Post by tim333 »

jraines wrote: post #24

I'm reminded of Jimmy Carter's "Malaise" speech: The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the fut…

>Everything he listed has gotten worse, not better

Not productivity. It's roughly doubled. http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/what-can-labor-producti...

Re: Unnecessariat

#178

Post by sokoloff »

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…

IMO, capital income does come from work; it's just that the moment of income is divorced from the moment of work. That could be by a year, a decade, or a century, and it could accrue to the individual who personally did the work, or to someone to whom they traded, gifted, or willed the capital.

I believe that an individual should be allowed to save the results of their work and consume the benefits later. I believe that they should be allowed to gift (or share) these savings with someone of their choosing. I don't believe that these allowances should be voided by death.

From that, I conclude that if my wife and I die with $2MM estate and give $1MM to each of our children, that they are entitled to the income from that capital, but it doesn't change the fact that that income originated from (my wife's and my) work.

Re: Unnecessariat

#179

Post by Amezarak »

mindcrime wrote: post #171
nhaehnle wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your definition of "theft" is "taking something by (threat of) force", then (1) private property at least of land clearly is theft, (2) one could even go further and argue that some forms of taxation aren't theft, and (3) police are regularly involved in theft even while doing the right thing. The key is in "taking something": there is a baseline state of the world against we're comparing the current status quo. F…

If your definition of "theft" is "taking something by (threat of) force", That is not my definition of theft. Theft by force (or threat of force) is a subset of theft in the more general sense. For point (1), there is clearly a historical baseline in which no land was owned by anybody, and all land was equally accessible to all. Then people started to make claims that some part of land was theirs, and that they had t…

> You select a piece of land that is unoccupied and unowned, and you build a home on it and start a garden.

In the proto-world, unoccupied land is generally regarded as held in the commons, free for use by hunters, fishers, herders, gatherers, migrations, ceremonies, scattering seeds of herbs and plants you like, and whatever else. There is basically no unclaimed land.

> Would you argue that you have no right to say "bugger off" to that person

You have no inherent right to do so, but it would absolutely be in your interest to do so. And indeed, while it took many thousands of years to settle the question, the settler-agricultural types did finally crush the more nomadic peoples in the last couple centuries and assert an absolute claim to formerly common property, so the question is moot: your property rights were established by thousands of years of violence and genocide by people tired of nomadic peoples asserting their traditional rights.

Re: Unnecessariat

#180

Post by conjectures »

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.

Ludicrous. This is the same kind of simplistic ideological fantasy as to think we're always on the RHS of the Laffer curve.
Post reply on HN