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

What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 576 posts

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#21

Post by alexmingoia »

carsongross wrote: post #2

The essay suffers from Ted-talk disease: lots of grand gestures and bromides, not as much rigorous thinking. The underlying problem is an important one, however. A little-discussed solution to this problem is one I would like to see tried, distributism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism A book I am currently reading (and enjoying) on it is: https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist...

> Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer

Nonsense. Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and trade allow for higher-order goods to be used as inputs to produce lower-order goods. Farming doesn't just require a tractor and some land. You need fuel to run the tractor, other industries to come together to make the tractor, a merchant to purchase the tractor from, and on and on.

It does not follow that owning more things related to a trade will produce more things. The opposite is the case, it's cheaper for the farmer to buy the tractor than produce tractors himself.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#22

Post by henrikschroder »

crdoconnor wrote: post #7
Practicality wrote: post #4

At this point I've already come to accept that fulltime labor for everyone is simply not going to happen. We just don't need it. The big question is will the majority be able to maintain enough power to obtain income for those who aren't working, or will we see some kind of serious class warfare/starving populations? This is a huge question in human history and it remains to be seen how we as a species are going to a…

We'll have "enough" full time labor when everybody it fully satisfied with what they have and there's nothing more that they'd buy if they had more money.* Until then, if there's not enough jobs, that's an artificially induced shortage (e.g. austerity). * Excepting natural resources - e.g. "more" beachfront property.

So you're saying there's no way to reach post-labour before post-scarcity?

Hmm, that's interesting, I hope it's not true.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#23

Post by dclowd9901 »

nhaehnle wrote: post #13

The essay opens on a horrible false dichotomy. No, full employment alone won't solve the problems of inequality that the essay very capably outlines. But full employment may be necessary anyway , because having the sense of being needed and being useful may be an important factor to many people's well-being. Full employment is really just another way of saying that everyone can get this sense of being needed/useful v…

The falseness is around working a shit job as a means to realizing purpose. Why can't we realize purpose through exploring life on our own terms?

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#25

Post by ken47 »

alexmingoia wrote: post #21
carsongross wrote: post #2

The essay suffers from Ted-talk disease: lots of grand gestures and bromides, not as much rigorous thinking. The underlying problem is an important one, however. A little-discussed solution to this problem is one I would like to see tried, distributism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism A book I am currently reading (and enjoying) on it is: https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist...

> Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer Nonsense. Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and…

You are assuming abundance is the issue. It is not.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#26

Post by atemerev »

henrikschroder wrote: post #22
crdoconnor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll have "enough" full time labor when everybody it fully satisfied with what they have and there's nothing more that they'd buy if they had more money.* Until then, if there's not enough jobs, that's an artificially induced shortage (e.g. austerity). * Excepting natural resources - e.g. "more" beachfront property.

So you're saying there's no way to reach post-labour before post-scarcity? Hmm, that's interesting, I hope it's not true.

How it could be not true? What is "fair" income in scarcity?

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#27

Post by amelius »

carsongross wrote: post #2

The essay suffers from Ted-talk disease: lots of grand gestures and bromides, not as much rigorous thinking. The underlying problem is an important one, however. A little-discussed solution to this problem is one I would like to see tried, distributism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism A book I am currently reading (and enjoying) on it is: https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist...

> The essay suffers from Ted-talk disease: lots of grand gestures and bromides

Most Ted-presenters can be characterized as people trying to become thought-leaders. Not sure if it is the case here.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#28

Post by henrikschroder »

crdoconnor wrote: post #12

"These days, everybody from Left to Right – from the economist Dean Baker to the social scientist Arthur C Brooks, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump – addresses this breakdown of the labour market by advocating ‘full employment’, as if having a job is self-evidently a good thing, no matter how dangerous, demanding or demeaning it is. " And, when you experiment with a job guarantee program and turn it into a basic i…

That's the biggest problem I see as well with reaching a post-labour future. Every single political party across the entire spectrum has full employment as their stated goal. Some experiment with basic income, but it's still just seen as a different way of doing welfare, and it's always assumed that the majority of government taxation will come from other people's labour. People just cannot wrap their heads around a future where taxation is based on productivity, not human labour, and where labour is optional.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#29

Post by crdoconnor »

Practicality wrote: post #17
crdoconnor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll have "enough" full time labor when everybody it fully satisfied with what they have and there's nothing more that they'd buy if they had more money.* Until then, if there's not enough jobs, that's an artificially induced shortage (e.g. austerity). * Excepting natural resources - e.g. "more" beachfront property.

"everybody it [is] fully satisfied with what they have and there's nothing more that they'd buy if they had more money." That's the idea. Let's for the moment, just assume that AI and robots and some other technologies are ridiculously productive sometime in the future and we solve all sorts of problems and have the resources to provide everyone with everything they want. At that point it's not a question of giving e…

Right. This star trek utopia is a long way off.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#30

Post by lucideer »

alexmingoia wrote: post #21
carsongross wrote: post #2

The essay suffers from Ted-talk disease: lots of grand gestures and bromides, not as much rigorous thinking. The underlying problem is an important one, however. A little-discussed solution to this problem is one I would like to see tried, distributism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism A book I am currently reading (and enjoying) on it is: https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist...

> Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer Nonsense. Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and…

Generally speaking, I agree with the overall content of your post. However your first and last sentences really emphasise for me the real problem: oversimplifying and stratifying the discussion.

"Nonsense" is an extreme overstatement, there are nuances to both arguments.

"This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not.

A farmer needs to buy their tractor from a tractor manufacturer and fuel it from a fuel extractor/generator, but not everyone need be involved in this cycle and not every step need be specialised in a completely unary manner. Also, the emphasis on individual economic efficiency over efficiency of communal benefit is important: if a farmer can produce less - but sufficient - food, for less - but sufficient - material profit, while not producing negative impacts for others elsewhere in the economic system at large, that's a more "efficient" overall system.

The most important word in the excerpt you quoted is "most"

Post reply on HN