What if jobs are not the solution but the problem? • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by grzm » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #55

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No physical system is uniformly distributed, and dynamical systems ensure that it will stay that way, therefore enough differences are baked into the system that it's effectively impossible have equally functional systems everywhere. Some people can just lift more stuff than others, or think about numbers faster or whatever happens to need to be done and their labor is more valuable because it's more efficient. There…

Clearly their ability to lift is not why there are millions without clean drinking water, for example. You are right that there are difference built-in to humanity, but we have already overcome those with fairly common technology already. Now inequality is more about who your parents were instead of where you are born or other purely physical problems. We can ship drinking water to anyplace on the planet. We just are…

Our systems don't need to be perfect they just need to be better than they are now.

You make a great point here, and one I hope you continue to push for. Statements like Why must inequality be forever? will obscure this point as it doesn't include the nuance of "not perfect, just better". You will always find people who will argue that "Why must inequality be forever" is naïve at best, needlessly preventing you from finding solutions you might agree on.

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

#62

Post by tristor » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

ben_jones wrote: post #48

jjoonathan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 5 companies all invest R&D in developing smartphones that fulfill essentially the same purpose, is 4/5ths of the R&D money wasted? I'd say not -- competition decreases prices and increases quality. Even if it's "morally" redundant as compared to a world run by a benevolent supercomputer, it serves a concrete purpose with concrete benefits. Similarly, if a tractor can prevent Joe from working a miserable low-skill…

Agreed. Take something relatively recent, water resistance in modern smart phones, had Samsung R&D not gone down that rabbit hole it would not be nearly as ubiquitous.

To be accurate, Sony did it first with their Xperia Z line.

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

#63

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #23

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?

People have a hard time getting over the concept that "purpose in life" must be given by an authority figure rather than being inherent in the way we're built as social and moral organisms.

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

#64

Post by IanDrake » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

Forget the word "job" and instead use the word "value" to understand just how silly this idea is.

What he's saying is that no one needs to do anything of value anymore. You know, like the guy who built the house you live in, chopped down the trees it was built with, managed the project to build it, inspected the building to make sure it was put together correctly, etc...

Hundreds of people had jobs to make the shelter you value. They want something in exchange for that value. These pseudo intellectuals can't seem to understand this basic underpinning of civilization.

The exchange of value is as old as time and nothing is going to change that for a long time.

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

#65

Post by GFischer » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

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…

I'm not a fan of Cristina Kirchner's policies (to put it mildly), but this one sounds like it worked.

Self-worth through jobs is an important point.

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

#66

Post by maolt » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #38

atemerev wrote: post #24

"Jobs" are a relatively recent phenomenon, and are not forever. Inequality, however, was and is forever. Basic income is economically unsustainable.

Why is it unsustainable? Why must inequality be forever?

Suppose you give everybody the same universal revenue (let us postulate everybody has the same rights).

The issue at stake, is that unless you also engineer them to be similar in every aspect (looks, intelligence, physical capability), there will be differences, and those differences will enable a new hierarchy, with people who have more, and others who have less, thus recreating a unequal base situation.

You don't get to solve the problem by making every human's base situation identical, you solve it by making the inequality device and the means to use it available to everybody.

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

#67

Post by DougWebb » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

landryraccoon wrote: post #51

lucideer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

> we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Can you explain this statement further? North Korea and Venezuela's economic systems aren't working. America and most of Europe simply don't allow everyone to consume as much as they would prefer to consume. It sounds like you mean "isn't working" in the sense of "an iPhone 5 isn't working as well as an iPhone 7", not "my car isn't working so I can't get to…

I would say "isn't working" in the sense that the vast majority are struggling to achieve or retain financial security, while a tiny minority have concentrated most of the weath for themselves. Also, the trend continues to concentrate wealth further, making it ever more difficult for the majority.

This is a recurring cycle, which has happened many times throughout history. Pretty much every time it ends with the elites killed, their wealth stolen, civilization collapsed or set back significantly, and a new cycle begins. I don't understand why the elites never see this coming, or take adequate steps to prevent it. All they have to do is be somewhat less greedy.

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

#68

Post by Pyxl101 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

thesagan wrote: post #50

cperciva wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. This makes as much sense as saying "You say that my magical spacecraft won't work due to the laws of physics, but physics is exactly the problem: We can't…

Begging the question; economics is not a physical science where you can run A/B tests on an economy and find results. It's a social study, mostly. As someone who studied it for years , institutionally and on my own, I can tell you that economists do not agree on any basic laws except that people have a long list of wants and that not all of them can be satisfied. Many economists are questioning their 101s lately. Loo…

Can you give one (preferably two) specific examples of respected economists who are questioning 101 level econ principles?

I've studied economics at the college level. I follow economics news and am not aware of economists questioning 101 level principles. Many of these are relatively simple and intuitively obvious ones (once you wrap your head around them), much like 101 level maths.

Consequently I am inclined to disbelieve the claim that economists are questioning econ 101 principles, unless you can provide some examples. More than one example would be most convincing since you're claiming this is a general trend. Journal article links would be appreciated.

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

#69

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

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.

There certainly is!

Prices for goods just need to keep dropping, as they have already been doing to.

If they keep dropping, then our existing welfare system will handle the rest.

If the percent money that society spends in welfare state the same, and goods get cheaper and cheaper, then that means that living off welfare will eventually be a pretty sweet deal, able to provide all your wants and needs.

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

#70

Post by daptaq » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #59

thesagan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Begging the question; economics is not a physical science where you can run A/B tests on an economy and find results. It's a social study, mostly. As someone who studied it for years , institutionally and on my own, I can tell you that economists do not agree on any basic laws except that people have a long list of wants and that not all of them can be satisfied. Many economists are questioning their 101s lately. Loo…

"Trade and exploiting comparative advantages yields greater utility" is about as hard a law as any.

Not if you ask marxist-economists...