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

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

#101

Post by zappo2938 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:33 PM UTC

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…

Today farming requires a constellation of satellites to communicate with a GPS system that automates the tractor.

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

#102

Post by thesagan » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

Pyxl101 wrote: post #68

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…

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 di…

Please accept my apologies: I'm taking a Mary Poppins approach by "not explaining anything." We're all capable of looking for examples that'll confirm our own suspicions; an attempt at confirming or disconfirming what I've blurted out above can be an exercise for the diligent reader.

I want to push back on the idea that economics is a way to divinate the truth of how to generate and share happiness. It's a piece of the puzzle, but a very small one.

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

#103

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #88

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…

Most (all?) bad economic policies come from denial of economics 101. For example, fixed currency exchange rates. And, of course, wage and price controls.

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by thesagan » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

cdavid wrote: post #90

Pyxl101 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

(I am not an economist, never took a class in economics, but am interested in the field and like to read about it, so talke all of this w/ a grain of salt) It is not so much about questioning economics 101 principles as much as questioning their validity in the various economies. Taking the example of comparative advantage and more general trade theory, there are well known, respected economists (e.g. D. Rodrik) who…

You're right, it's a larger question of validity in these nuances. I knew I'd get in trouble saying "101", but I hope people will read that in a sympathetic light. (Ha!)

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

#105

Post by dclowd9901 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:44 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #63

dclowd9901 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a social construct that requires social reconditioning. Indeed, if everyone around me was pursuing their own interests free of concern, I might cast aspersions away from them and toward my own lot, asking what the hell I was doing wasting my life away in a crummy job when I just want to work on cars all day.

It's going to take probably 100 years to get there, but frankly we have no choice. It's either get with the program or buy into some form of population control.

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

#106

Post by thesagan » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

VodkaHaze wrote: post #100

daptaq wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you ask marxist-economists...

Yes, and we should ask Lysenkoists about effective growing of crops. Marx contributed massively to sociology. He contributed nothing of note to economics that's really relevant to this day (not that his effort was not commendable). Sticking to orthodox marxist economics in 2016 is more dogma than science.

Marx's contributions to sociology are definitely relevant today, even if they're not in vogue. Even if they're wrong. This is human behavior we're talking about, and people have memories that they act upon.

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

#107

Post by pygy_ » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

AmirS2 wrote: post #87

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…

> fulltime labor for everyone is simply not going to happen. We just don't need it. and from the article > there’s not enough work to go around I disagree. There's not enough paid employment to go around, but there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done! Our entire society needs to be weaned off its carbon dependence if we want humans to survive the next century. This will involve at the very least the w…

The constant supply solar of energy (and finite supply of mineral energy sources) also means that we won't be able to grow the economy indefinitely and need to find a way to transition to a system that thrives at equilibrium.

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

#108

Post by intopieces » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:53 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #79

We're there already. There are vast numbers of people who cannot make an economic contribution large enough to cover their costs. Education won't help. Teach a human how to do something, and you have one human who can do it. Teach a computer how to do something, and you can have as many computers as needed doing it. The US has already hit "peak school" in terms of economic benefit. About half of college graduates tak…

>About half of college graduates take jobs that don't really require a college education. Trade schools do even worse.

Do you have a source for this statistic? Because there are some important questions about such a study that might clarify the true meaning of such a number.

1.) How many of the graduates employed in "jobs that don't really require a college education" move on to a job that does, how long does it take them to do so? What does that look like vs. a person without a college education?

2.) What is defined as a "job that doesn't really require a college education"? Does it mean the employer did not require a college education to apply? Does it mean that the surveyor has decided the job(s) in question don't require a college education, even though the employers filter out applicants who lack one?

3.) What is the definition of a college education? As of 2014, only ~32% of people over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree [0]. Are you comparing anyone who ever went to college with everyone who didn't?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_... (Source is US gov't)

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

#109

Post by lumberjack » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

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...

I don't see the point of Distributism. Capitalism in reality doesn't work like that and no methods are laid out on how to achieve that kind of different capitalism. I personally don't even think it's possible.

It's just another form of utopian idealism.

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

#110

Post by geggam » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #30

alexmingoia wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wha…

Farmer who has an Ox / horse / mule and feeds the critter with grass / grain grown on his land does not need to buy a tractor.

In fact you can plant seeds with a stick and skip the critters.