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?

#171

Post by ohnomrbill » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

njharman wrote: post #83

Honest question: Is it not widely accepted that 1) Eventually, and probably pretty soon (within 100years), that there obviously won't be jobs for everyone. Automation, progress(efficiency gains) and increasing population makes it inevitable. 2) That a general "goal" of society is do away with jobs. In any traditional sense. To me we've been approaching that ever since agriculture provided ability to support specialis…

2) I have some issues with (though I agree with the general direction).

I would still describe science, art, etc. as a job (or at least any successful system will have to). There is a big difference between saying, "let's give people money, and hope they spend their time painting or writing", and saying "let's give people money contingent on their painting, writing, etc. with some of their time". In both cases, we don't strictly need the work, but one carries the connotation of laziness. That has proven to be a large sticking point in the current discussion.

As others have mentioned, there is a big difference between living in a system where basic needs are met and getting to that system. In particular, it has never been clear to me why we assume that people in power decide to accommodate the number of people we currently have. If the number of jobs is a problem, a despot can do the hard work of finding a system that works with fewer jobs or they can engage in population control by other means, hoping to delay the onset of the problem.

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

#172

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

jokermatt999 wrote: post #108

njharman wrote: post #83

Honest question: Is it not widely accepted that 1) Eventually, and probably pretty soon (within 100years), that there obviously won't be jobs for everyone. Automation, progress(efficiency gains) and increasing population makes it inevitable. 2) That a general "goal" of society is do away with jobs. In any traditional sense. To me we've been approaching that ever since agriculture provided ability to support specialis…

1) Seems to be increasing accepted. However, it looks like we're still on the early side of it, and the transition is going to be difficult. There will likely be a time when there are nowhere near enough jobs to go around, and not enough aid for the unemployed. 2) I wouldn't say this is widely accepted. On any topic about Universal Basic Income, one of the common refrains against it is "the dignity of work", and that…

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by ohnomrbill » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

dkarapetyan wrote: post #64

wrong_variable wrote: post #9

People forget History. The two times where labor was more valuable than capital. 1 | After the black death in Europe 2 | After the second world war Most of history's default was the gilded age, the roman empire survived for 600[1] years with having worse inequality than in the modern times. Usually the only way to reverse the trend is by a large scale elimination of significant portion of young people. [1] EDIT : cor…

Or, you know, we can admit there is enough food and shelter to go around for everyone and stop pretending everyone needs to work.

I'm happy to admit it, and wish others were. But it seems there's a lot of convincing to do first.

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

#174

Post by adamnemecek » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #169

adamnemecek wrote: post #23

Not an economist but my thoughts on the topic are that society can make changes to accommodate this. This isn't a catastrophe, we just need to prepare. I think this needs to/will happen: * labour will change from people having only one main skill to having multiple skills ("jack of all trades, master of none" will become "jack of all trades, master of fewer") * this will be made possible by the fact that technology m…

> * it will become standard for people to keep learning That won't happen, humans don't work that way and it ignores the reality that many people will simply be incapable of learning enough to be more valuable than a machine. Machines will put a floor on value and people who can't exceed that floor (which will be most of society at some future point) won't have jobs they can do.

> humans don't work that way

This is fundamentally an issue with the educational system. Change the system the rest will follow. Saying that humans don't work this way is like saying that nothing heavier than air will ever fly.

> incapable of learning enough to be more valuable than a machine

I don't think that AI and human intelligence will ever completely converge.

> Machines will put a floor on value and people who can't exceed that floor (which will be most of society at some future point) won't have jobs they can do.

I think that this breaks down to your interpretation of the world. I think that the world is a "fractal". Like notice how much specialization is going on.

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

#175

Post by DashRattlesnake » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

lastyearman wrote: post #37

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is misallocation of labor. There's a huge to-do list of jobs that need to be done at almost every level, from design and build of significant infrastructure in most countries around the world, to community-level support work. It would be perfectly possible to retrain the long term unemployed for all but the most difficult design and management elements. They're not done because the metrics of Wall St…

No, we would need to retrain them to do something that is valued. For which services/products do you think you're missing and would be ready to pay for if we were to retrain the unemployed?

> For which services/products do you think you're missing and would be ready to pay for

This isn't an individual virtue thing, it's a government/society thing. But there's lots things that could be valued, especially infrastructure stuff, for instance:

1. Better quality roads that are better maintained

2. Catching up on neglected maintenance of public infrastructure (e.g. bridges, etc).

3. New water projects in California needed to meet current demand. I recently read that no major projects have been undertaken since the 70s even though the population there has greatly increased.

4. List mile fiber to homes, even in rural areas.

5. Better public transit.

6. Building redundancy into critical infrastructure systems where it doesn't currently exist.

7. etc.

That's just a bunch of random stuff I listed off the top of my head. If unemployed people are sitting idle, why shouldn't society pursue projects like these or similar?

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

#176

Post by jwatte » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

welanes wrote: post #19

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is misallocation of labor. There's a huge to-do list of jobs that need to be done at almost every level, from design and build of significant infrastructure in most countries around the world, to community-level support work. It would be perfectly possible to retrain the long term unemployed for all but the most difficult design and management elements. They're not done because the metrics of Wall St…

> There's a huge to-do list of jobs that need to be done at almost every level, from design and build of significant infrastructure in most countries around the world, to community-level support work. But not the money to pay for these jobs. > It would be perfectly possible to retrain the long term unemployed. But who pays for this training? > Allocating labor on the basis of whether or not traders and stock owners c…

"But not the money to pay for these jobs."

We, the society, make the money. We could decide today that this is financed, either through printing, or through taxing. No theoretical problem.

Practically, those with the most resources have decided that they don't think we should take of those resources to support those with the least resources. But there's nothing inevitable about that. Historically, elite that are too powerful and too uncaring about the masses, end up on the guillotine/firing line/bottom of a pit.

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

#177

Post by jwatte » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

welanes wrote: post #19

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is misallocation of labor. There's a huge to-do list of jobs that need to be done at almost every level, from design and build of significant infrastructure in most countries around the world, to community-level support work. It would be perfectly possible to retrain the long term unemployed for all but the most difficult design and management elements. They're not done because the metrics of Wall St…

> There's a huge to-do list of jobs that need to be done at almost every level, from design and build of significant infrastructure in most countries around the world, to community-level support work. But not the money to pay for these jobs. > It would be perfectly possible to retrain the long term unemployed. But who pays for this training? > Allocating labor on the basis of whether or not traders and stock owners c…

"But not the money to pay for these jobs."

We, the society, make the money. We could decide today that this is financed, either through printing, or through taxing. No theoretical problem.

Practically, those with the most resources have decided that they don't think we should take of those resources to support those with the least resources. But there's nothing inevitable about that. Historically, elite that are too powerful and too uncaring about the masses, end up on the guillotine/firing line/bottom of a pit.

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

#178

Post by michaelt » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #151

jdminhbg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. Sports are zero-sum, the real-world economy is not.

Are sports economics zero-sum? Both teams get paid for playing. If one team loses, they don't give money to the other team.

Most sports are zero-sum in the sense that over a given set of matches, the number of wins has to equal the number of losses.

Obviously not every sport is that way. A major marathon might have one male and one female winner among 30,000 entrants.

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

#179

Post by skriticos2 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #144

johnwheeler wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. In such a marketplace, I would be a flop. You could supply me with the world’s best instruction, and I could endlessly strive to improve my skills. But, alas, on the gridiron or basketball court I would never command even a minimum wage. The brutal truth is that an advanced economic system, whether it be geared to physical or mental skills, will lea…

> To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. Sports are zero-sum, the real-world economy is not.

I think you missed the point. What I read from the statement is that Warren was not good at sports (arbitrary discipline not matching his forte for illustration) so he would suck in an economy focused around it. What he implies is that a lot of people suck at most of the fields that are in great demand, but also come with requirements that they just can't adjust to.. Especially with advanced age and with the disciplines commanding a certain amount of effort to master them (think years or decades). Most people are not very flexible and even the flexible people have their limits to adopt as the professions get more demanding on the menial side of preparation.

ps. I wanted to imply that professions and sought for jobs change faster than generations pass in recent times, which adds to the challenge of training people (especially with the still used model of train once, execute until pension model).

pps: oh, and low level grunt work for the folks that don't fancy studying is contracting fast, which compounds the problem.. you'll always have quite a few of these and they do have an impact.

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

#180

Post by jdminhbg » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

skriticos2 wrote: post #179

jdminhbg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. Sports are zero-sum, the real-world economy is not.

I think you missed the point. What I read from the statement is that Warren was not good at sports (arbitrary discipline not matching his forte for illustration) so he would suck in an economy focused around it. What he implies is that a lot of people suck at most of the fields that are in great demand, but also come with requirements that they just can't adjust to.. Especially with advanced age and with the discipli…

No, I understand that, but the problem with his analogy is that he's deliberately picked a field where one person's success is matched equally by another person's failure. He's overstating his case by projecting the image of the work economy being like getting dunked on by Lebron James day-in day-out.