What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around? • Hacker News Board

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#111

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

noarchy wrote: post #38

emodendroket wrote: post #15

Then the government should either directly employ people or else provide them with an income, or some combination of these.

>Then the government should either directly employ people or else provide them with an income, or some combination of these. It is interesting to see that, in the early 21st century, communism is becoming palatable again. Could this be due to all of the old communist states either ceasing to exist or (for instance, the case of China) changing into something quite unlike their former sleves? In short, did we forget ab…

Unless the US went communist in the 1930s, government employment, even for the express purpose of creating jobs, wouldn't constitute communism.

Besides that, if there is really not enough demand for workers, and there is never going to be, the alternative would seem to be a permanently unemployed underclass.

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#112

Post by sedachv » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #58

welanes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anybody pays them "to remain unemployed". But in most countries they receive social welfare while out of work. You could have them go break large rocks into smaller rocks if you have an ideological bent against people being unemployed but unless those rocks can be sold to somebody for more than what unemployment benefit is there's no incentive. Edit: Agree with the comments below. Rather than being idle…

But not the money to pay for these jobs....But in most countries they receive social welfare while out of work. See the contradiction here? We could put these people to work engaging in labor that is valuable, but not as valuable as the cost of their welfare. I.e. pay them $7.25/hour to do $5/hour worth of labor (net cost to society = $2.25/hour). Yet we don't. Instead we pay them to play video games (net cost to soc…

The Japanese government is doing exactly literally what the parent comment describes - paying people to dig up and break apart rocks: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/05/19/environment/the-...

This has been extremely destructive to the environment and has not done anything for the Japanese economy for the last 20 years.

It has been effective as a way of transferring taxpayer money to construction company presidents' pockets.

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#113

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #43

emodendroket wrote: post #15

Then the government should either directly employ people or else provide them with an income, or some combination of these.

The government employs 2.7 million civilians and well over a million people in the military. That's over 2% of the entire labor force.

I had more of a new WPA in mind here.

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#114

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #89

emodendroket wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#2 seems more like a way to shift jobs around from one place to another than to create them

We did a scenario planning project where you put together human trends and factors to try and predict several versions of the future 10 years from now. In one of our scenarios was a future where humans bounced from job to job (high turnover, low unemployment) and skills-based education was cheap and easily accessible. Some of the factors leading to this was the "established"-education bubble bursting, increased autom…

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but a race to the bottom among municipalities and states to try and attract businesses is already happening and has been for some time. My point is that this won't actually solve the problem posed so much as redirect it somewhere else.

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#115

Post by keyboardhitter » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

WorldMaker wrote: post #47

ben_jones wrote: post #5

I feel like the "infinite jobs" idea is too foundational to American culture to be completely removed. The very definition of "prosperity" includes having a job. The definition of "success" includes having a job.

I've described it before about how deeply American culture has a "work problem" and that it is as much a religion as anything. We don't call it a "Protestant Work Ethic" without reason, and lot of what you hear people say about jobs and work these days wouldn't sound much different from what the Puritans (who get credit as some of the earliest American colonists) preached as core to their way of life. To some extent…

> To many people the big corporate passive aggressive notes from belly of HR about the "good of the company" are the closest to people's weekly and/or daily sermons that they'll see.

Oh wow. I've not thought about that culture in such a light. Perhaps that's why I have always found those "sermons" a bit creepy? I think you have a great point here.

> Or a redefinition of a lot more hobbies and crafts as "jobs" and "work". (I'm not sure which would be easier. There are stigmas in both directions.)

100% agreed. I know quite a few artists who are branching off into freelance, using the internet to their disposal (patreon, gofundme, etsy, etc.) who have been chided for not "having a real job" or looked down upon for choosing to have a part time "real job" to make time for their craft / art. Yet, they make respectable income. This phenomenon for artists in general may not be new, of course. I just like to imagine how the internet may help change or eradicate the stigma of it not being "good enough".

When my own brother decided to go down this path, I was a bit concerned, and the truth is most of my positions as a sysadmin until recently were very corporate. I was appalled at myself for even thinking things like, "But this isn't going to build a career for him. Why is he even taking this chance? This seems stupid of him."

I'm now wondering if my exposure to this 'corporate dogma' may be related.

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#116

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

worldsayshi wrote: post #81

emodendroket wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#2 seems more like a way to shift jobs around from one place to another than to create them

How is this?

If Texas offers me some really sweet incentives so I go and establish my business there (or move an existing one there) instead of California I haven't exactly created twice as many jobs as I would have otherwise, have I?

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#117

Post by Bjartr » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

karllager wrote: post #80

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allocating labor on the basis of whether or not traders and stock owners can profit in the short to medium term turns out to be an unintelligent way to strategise an economy. And yet, this turns out to be the most succesful strategy civilization has used so far.

I always wonder, how people can associate effectiveness, success and other positive things with the current developments. The price of the progress, as we experience it today, is enormous. Exhaustion of natural resources, severe climate change, not to mention societal costs. We see a rapid rise in violence across continents and this seems to be just the beginning. I can easily see the western world turning into total…

Can you provide more detail about the rapid rise in violence across continents you mentioned? Is that measuring it in absolute terms or proportional to the population it occurs in?

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#118

Post by oconnore » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #56

oconnore wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mis-attributing our current trajectory. Most of the scientific developments that are now powering the US knowledge economy came out of government (ARPA, etc.) funded labs. Allocating R&D funds based strictly on "whether or not traders and stock owners can profit in the short to medium term" is relatively new in the US (although you could argue it was the norm before we became a superpower). Our most e…

The OP was talking about labor allocation and you're talking about R&D allocation.

I think that increasing R&D allocation increases labor demand, both within those projects, and from capital investments that are derived from them. I think that investors are yet to demonstrate that they are capable of valuing the sorts of large scale (historically government funded) R&D projects that have been fruitful in the past.

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#119

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #51

emodendroket wrote: post #15

Then the government should either directly employ people or else provide them with an income, or some combination of these.

Yes, let's use the coercive power of the state to direct the bulk of people's daily lives. What could possibly go wrong?

Yes, let's use the coercive power of private capital to direct the bulk of people's lives. What could possibly go wrong?

More substantially, what is your solution?

Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

#120

Post by lastyearman » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

maxharris wrote: post #78

First, there are plenty of jobs, but not enough people that have decided to develop themselves enough to have the skills to do them. For example (a real life one, unfortunately for me): I need a biopsy of a mass near my heart, but the current waiting time for this procedure here in Seattle (at both major hospitals) is two months. What we do have is plenty of regulations that constrain the supply of physicians, servic…

Labor laws are just moving the risk from the employee to the employer. In an ideal world the employee would be compensated more for higher risk so nothing would change. But in the real world most employees won't realize that so we (supposedly) decided to implement labor laws.

There are plenty of jobs for sure. Look at how much better we could make the developing world if someone was willing (are you?) to work those jobs.