The brave new world of robots and lost jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#191

Post by kamaal » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #158

PeterisP wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those jobs are impossible without a very high inequality. In the first world, there is a much smaller gap between the average wage and the minimum allowed wage than in India, making impossible many jobs that are time intensive with low revenue. An engineer can have a cook and a driver if they make ten times as much as a cook or a driver; this arrangement doesn't really work if a typical engineer makes e.g. two or thr…

India has lower income inequality than the US. Your hypothesis seems falsified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

As an Indian. Let me tell you the kind of inequality you see in the US is very different compared to the kind of inequality you see in India. By many a definition, no one is poor in the US. Also US has better infrastructure and economic opportunities than India for everyone. By infrastructure I mean access to clean drinking water, sanitation and things like roads.

US has more a problem of strict tax accountability for upper-middle-to-lower classes, while none for the rich. And lack of chances to breaking income ceilings. Swim lanes in US are decided in the first 20-25 years of life and things are pretty much set from there on.

While in India we still have people eating rotis(Indian flat bread) made out wild grass with salt once/twice a day merely to stay alive.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#192

Post by burkaman » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

johngalt wrote: post #166

Technology has been reducing the need for human labor since the invention of the plow. And yet we aren't all unemployed hunter-gatherers. You could argue that 'this time it's different', but you have to at least acknowledge that luddites of every generation have made similar claims and been wrong every time. Literally tried and proven wrong for centuries.

Even if this time isn't different, "luddites of every generation" are not always wrong about short term effects. It's not acceptable to say "most people without college educations are probably going to be screwed over, but it should all work out eventually". In the past, technological advancement has changed jobs rather than eliminating them, but life also sucked for most workers in the past.

Basically what I mean is that you shouldn't look at the Industrial Revolution and think "that went great, no need to worry". This time should be different, because we can learn from history and not just stand back and hope for the best.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#193

Post by kamaal » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #179

PeterisP wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This measure of inequality is mostly influenced by the distance between the mean income and the largest earners (who constitute a huge portion of the total GDP), however, I still maintain that in India there is a much larger distance between the mean income and the lowest wages of simple laborers/maids/walas/etc than the first world. It seems that you are from India, can you give an anecdotal example of how large is…

I'm not from India but I spend a lot of time there. Most people don't have a full time maid. They have a maid who comes daily (or maybe 3x/week) and also works for others. This is quite feasible economically in the US - suppose cleaning a home takes 2 hours and a maid accepts $10/hour. That's $20/day or $430/month (assuming 5x/week). So in the US you could get comparable levels of service for maybe $1000/month. It's…

Its possible only because human labor is cheap. And that is because those people have nothing else to do. Population is high, resources are scanty. People will do whatever they can to make a living.

But in most urban metros, cost of human labor is only going up. Washing machines are all over the places, dryers which were absent even a few years back are showing up. Robot vacuum cleaners are replacing few-hours/day maids all the time.

This is even more so in high rising apartments. Maid culture and personal servant culture in India is ending with urban living.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#194

Post by TimJRobinson » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #187

TimJRobinson wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason most countries don't force those on welfare to work is that some of the current recipients will say "screw this I'm not working for peanuts" and turn to theft, selling drugs or prostitution. If they were allowed to just be they would entertain themselves at home. So you have to be willing to accept this increased crime tradeoff for this to work.

So poor people are a bunch of stationary bandits and we pay them money in tribute to prevent them from harming us? What horrible people you make them out to be. (Note: I have no problem with people who sell drugs or sex and think both should be legal. I'm referring specifically to theft here.) I'm not sure why we need to accept this increased crime tradeoff. Why can't we (here "we" refers to folks who are willing to…

Most aren't, but some are, and as there is no way to separate the good from the bad you have to take this into account.

I'm just pointing out the main flaw in this plan and the reason it (as far as I know) has never been implemented. You can argue against a strawman all you like but it's not going to solve any problems.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#195

Post by dwaltrip » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

sverige wrote: post #89

aninhumer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the original argument assumes that the welfare is equivalent to their salary (otherwise they'd be consuming less resources), so yes they'd probably be happier.

I'm not sure that this widespread assumption on HN that most people would continue their education or pursue interesting hobbies if they had sufficient income to not work is correct. Most people would sit around the house, get high and watch the tube. Work provides much more than the goods produced and services rendered. For many or most, it also provides a sense of identity and purpose and well-being. When there's n…

Why can't we create programs to help people engage in activities that they find meaningful, while at the same time connecting with others in their community?

Your post hints at some deep human needs, which our current culture heavily assumes must be met by a traditional job & economic production. It may be a painful transition, but it isn't difficult for me imagine a society that relies on other endeavors to meet these needs.

Local arts programs. Maker shops. Fairs and sporting events. Mentoring programs. Maybe some kind of part-time thing that resembles a college or university in many ways, and it doesn't necessarily end after 4 years. And so on.

In fact, human nature being as it is, after several decades, a stigma would likely develop against those who chose to stay at home and not get involved in any of the programs, similar to the stigma against being unemployed today.

People just want to be recognized and valued, and to feel a sense of personal progress. There are many ways to do this. Look at open source for an example of a community that achieves these things without any money exchanging hands.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#196

Post by humanrebar » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

sverige wrote: post #46

humanrebar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For jobs where 40 hours per week has basically the same productivity as 30 hours per week, that's fine. For jobs where context is important (medicine, software), 'working less' will cause a disproportionate hit to productivity. Some problems you can't throw more people at. That's more or less the thesis of the Mythical Man-Month, and it applies to many careers. Though there are probably plenty of careers (like drivin…

No, you can't lighten the work load for trucking (without automation). Over the road truck driving doesn't benefit from reducing hours and hiring more, since OTR drivers basically live in their trucks for three or four weeks at a time to maximize flexibility in moving freight. You would need more trucks to accomplish that, and there's already a driver shortage since there aren't enough Millenials willing to do the jo…

> Over the road truck driving doesn't benefit from reducing hours and hiring more, since OTR drivers basically live in their trucks for three or four weeks at a time to maximize flexibility in moving freight.

So give them three weeks on, three weeks off. Or have them drive shorter runs, handing trailers off to other trucks for 'long hauls'.

To your other points, I wasn't commenting on the economics of pay levels for truck drivers. I was saying if everyone was happy with the wages, some tasks (leaving the concept of 'a job' to the side) can certainly be divvied up among more workers without a major loss in productivity...

The only objection I could see to that hypothesis is that there's a shortage in the natural talent pool so that there aren't enough workers to allow a shorter work week. Maybe there aren't enough patient, healthy, and alert people (or whatever the other qualities of a good trucker are) to handle three times more truckers working one-third as much. That's an empirical question at the end of the day.

With that in mind, it seems unlikely to me that makes sense to have three times more brain surgeons working one third as much.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#197

Post by formula1 » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #150

formula1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its slso possible they werent sustainable. Worker strikes snd unions will definitely put a hamper on your production. If people cant support children or they know a job is a death sentence, when an opening comes up due to a strike they may not be too eager to work

Yes, I trivialized a complex social evolution on my comment to make the point that labour conditions were not changed simply because it made sense economically in the factory owner's yearly budgeting. The main driving factor was recognition from all around that the labour conditions needed to change for ethical reasons, and the factory owners had to acquiesce to the demands of the society.

Are you talking about the gov? If thats the case, you should look into the history in regards to unions and unethical labor practice. I think it was this year that a whistleblower revealed that lithium was being mined by children. I appreciate you think we have "evolved" but really we just wear better masks

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#198

Post by smaddox » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

sverige wrote: post #60

cousin_it wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it's more of an argument for a universal wage subsidy, but I'd be happy with UBI as well.

I've been thinking about UBI a lot. Who's going to pay for it? Certainly not the big tech companies. They barely pay any taxes now, and they're the ones who stand to gain the most with automation.

Ideally, it would be financed using a mix of fiat currency and taxes. Then it could take the place of debt growth for building the monetary base. If inflation becomes too rapid, the mix would be tilted more towards taxes. If deflation hits, the mix would be heavily tilted towards fiat.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#199

Post by unprepare » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #172

auggierose wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a matter of how that job offer is set up. If the terms are "pick one of these 100 government jobs or we cut your benefits" then clearly the people you will get for that job will be different than your standard public school teacher, who is supposed to have studied for that job (at least that is how it is in Germany). IF on the other hand you establish child care as a proper job that people can take or leave, ju…

As I said repeatedly above, the basic job guarantee is just another job. It pays primarily in-kind benefits (i.e. rooms in govt dorms, govt cafeteria food, etc) and little money, and it's available to anyone who wants it. Also welfare is eliminated the day we create the basic job (or after some phase-in period, more realistically). So basically yes, the government will pay for an army of child carers, an army of infr…

and for people who arent physically capable of doing these jobs? if we're dismantling welfare system then how are these people surviving?

what about people who get illnesses that take them away from work for extended periods? people needed multiple surgeries, months of physical therapy, assistance of medical devices, etc.

is healthcare included in this government job? if so, what isnt covered? if not, how are people expected to stay healthy enough to continue working?

mental health care?

how are these people expected to save for retirement?

are people over the age of, say, 75 expected to work as construction workers if they didnt save enough for retirement?

How and when would these workers have the time and money to become trained for better paying careers? does this job come with some tuition programs also?

you mention trash pickers, why wouldnt that be automated, or is this a scheme by which we outlaw the automation of sectors of the economy in order to protect these government jobs?

would these workers/companies compete on the open marketplace with others, or would this be a government monopoly?

if its not a monopoly, say im hired as a child carer. what do i do when one day theres no child to take care of because people dont want the shitty government child caretakers, they want to private ones? do i get fired? do i get paid to sit in the government office and wait? can i go home? is this an economically efficient use of a persons time?

if im to sit and wait in an office until the end of the day, how is that different than a UBI other than i have to sit in an office all day?

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#200

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

smaddox wrote: post #198

sverige wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about UBI a lot. Who's going to pay for it? Certainly not the big tech companies. They barely pay any taxes now, and they're the ones who stand to gain the most with automation.

Ideally, it would be financed using a mix of fiat currency and taxes. Then it could take the place of debt growth for building the monetary base. If inflation becomes too rapid, the mix would be tilted more towards taxes. If deflation hits, the mix would be heavily tilted towards fiat.

"A mix of fiat currency and taxes" is somewhere between poorly described and downright incoherent. Fiat currency is a thing you can use for money, taxes is a way of gathering money (whether its fiat currency or not) for the government.

Do you mean a mix of printing money and taxes -- e.g., just outright abandoning the idea of independent central banking and separation of monetary policy from fiscal policy and using a mix of directly printing money and regular taxation to fund the benefit?

If so, I think that's a poorly conceived idea that, in the best case, has no advantages from running monetary policy independently with similar priorities to those that drive it in principle now (managing inflation and unemployment), while paying UBI out of general government funds while funding the government through a mix of taxation and debt as now.