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

151–160 of 576 posts

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

#151

Post by freshhawk »

jsmith0295 wrote: post #122
wott wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, because half of other people's work is bullshit. Or because a third of other people's work output is used to take them from home to work. Or because the amount on the paycheck is totally unrelated to the value a worker produces. Or because a quarter of other people's work is not about creating value, but about destroying it and driving all of us always faster towards a catastrophe. In short, because most…

So why not try and fix the mismatch between the paycheck and the value produced by the worker rather than just abandoning the idea of producing any value at all? Even if someone is paid 10% of what they produce, I'd rather have them doing that for 40 hours a week than doing nothing and collecting a welfare check.

Because the people with a lot of power are actively opposed to any fix?

A huge number of people want this mismatch to be fixed, but are wise enough to know they have zero ability to do anything about it.

We're in the midst of discovering just how useless "consciousness raising" slacktivist campaigns are, and that was basically the last hope for being able to contribute to a solution for a lot of people.

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

#152

Post by youdontknowtho »

sqeaky wrote: post #126
nico_h wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) is this worse than the current system? b) Is it really human nature? This is what social norms are for. Slavery is for now still mostly frowned upon, and in some circles even racism is. Even though using either usually results in huge personnal gains for some.

Slavery is a great example to work with. It has been made so costly to own slaves that no one in the western world can or wants to do it. In most areas just the social of ramifications of attempting to acquire slaves will cause all your customers to leave and employers to fire you. Then if you somehow do get a few slaves law enforcement or military agencies will try to stop you. Since they generally enforce their mon…

People should leave slavery out of their intellectual arguments.

Its callous.

Human trafficking is still organized, global, and wildly profitable. There are people in slavery near you, no matter where you are. It's real.

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

#153

Post by nico_h »

rdtsc wrote: post #82

> Most jobs aren’t created by private, corporate investment, so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment. But won't raising taxes on corporate income drive corporation to other jurisdiction? So employment in that company then won't just slowly trail off, but will look like a cliff, dropping to 0. So isn't that idea ignoring the fact that companies don't have to stick into one place and so we arbitrar…

This are the idea I have been struggling with:

1) how do you get people to accept the existence of basic income without perceiving the beneficiaries as moochers.

2) what do people on basic do?

Right now your example of people visiting the elderly is in some place paid work but can also be performed by volunteer. However volunteers should be vetted.

My guess is that when everybody is on basic, you can earn "social credits" for volunteering. But should that grant you access to more resources, or should that be like "Achievements" in video games? And how do you avoid turning that into the Black Mirror episode "15 millions Merits".

But even "social credit" cannot prevent the paid workers to look down on the moochers on basic.

How do we get to the star trek society utopia...?

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

#154

Post by icantdrive55 »

thesagan wrote: post #106
VodkaHaze wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Marx was an Economist. I forget the exact amount of pages he wrote on sociology, history, or philosophy; I believe it was ten pages of this thoughts. And that's what people remember.

He wrote 10,000 pages of economic theory. I can't say they are wrong, or right--I haven't read his complete work.

I doubt Russia bothered to read, and implement his theories to the tee.

I don't think we can honestly evaluate wether he might be wrong, or right.

(I wonder if his plan might work if they could ever take nepotism, and corruption out of the equation. It seems like nepotism, and corruption taint every economic theory?)

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

#155

Post by lucideer »

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…

By "isn't working", I mean "is actively causing massive poverty despite enormous technical progress to the point where we should technically have the means and resources to provide everything everyone needs to be comfortable".

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

#156

Post by cwyers »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #148
VodkaHaze wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That wasn't the point. The point is that the "laws" of economics are the same rigorous laws of physics. Markets aren't forces of nature. That's propaganda.

Citing economic theory that has been discredited as evidence that economics is not a science makes about as much sense as citing Ptolemy's Geocentric model as evidence that astronomy isn't a science.

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

#157

Post by twistedpair »

CalRobert wrote: post #16
wildmusings wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm unemployed and I really don't think I have any duties to work in fast food or to deliver pizza because I must contribute. If I decide I can live poor and be happy with welfare, I will. I think it's a great thing to be able to live a frugal life and still be healthy enough. Why do you think that you should have the right to live off of other people's work? Welfare checks aren't fairy money, they're money that ca…

" Welfare checks aren't fairy money, they're money that came out of other people's paychecks." That's true, but I increasingly don't mind. It's also money that came from your own paycheck if you were a high earner in the past.

It's also the money that subsidizes people to work the jobs that corporations don't pay enough wages to live off of (e.g. Wal-Mart 'Associates'). Everyone wants goods produced as cheaply as possible, but doesn't want to pay their producers living wages.

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

#158

Post by lucideer »

sqeaky wrote: post #35
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…

How do you build a system that is stable where an individual is expected to leave some personal gain on the table? That runs entirely counter to human nature. If you can solve that you may have something workable, but without it "Nonsense" is as good a word as any.

Because it doesn't run counter to human nature. If I had a dollar for every time someone rolled out that painful, tired line... It's utterly baseless. Again, it comes down to oversimplification.

bjelkeman-again has a fair point re: northern Europe; some very good examples to the contrary.

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

#159

Post by nico_h »

rdtsc wrote: post #82

> Most jobs aren’t created by private, corporate investment, so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment. But won't raising taxes on corporate income drive corporation to other jurisdiction? So employment in that company then won't just slowly trail off, but will look like a cliff, dropping to 0. So isn't that idea ignoring the fact that companies don't have to stick into one place and so we arbitrar…

A possible solution to the "raising taxes on corporation will drive them to other jurisdictions" problem is to make the taxes the same everywhere, at least within the same country, ideally at the world's level, for a truly level playing field. Another would be to say "we prevent you from doing business here if you don't do something here" (the india / china strategy).

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

#160

Post by nhaehnle »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #84
DougWebb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 elit…

Are you implying that people have had to struggle less to achieve or retain financial security in the past? During what time period and in what country? Can you share some specific data substantiating the claim? Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years, and real family income has been rising overall since the 1950s. Wealth concentration today is lower than it was in the 1930s. Poverty has fallen…

the fact of the rich being well off doesn't necessarily hurt the non-rich

That's debatable. Human beings have a pretty significant natural tendency to look at the relative well-being rather than their absolute well-being. It makes sense, given that for any social animal, relative well-being aka ranking in the group hierarchy, is essential.

Some people are more affected by this and other less, but even all else equal, increased inequality can reduce people's quality of life.

Add to that the effect of mass media which allows an easy comparison to some of the most wealthy and powerful people in society, and you have a recipe for widespread unhappiness.

Post reply on HN