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

201–210 of 576 posts

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

#201

Post by nico_h »

visarga wrote: post #171
nico_h wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rule #1 : Anything that can be economically automated will be. Corollary: Anything that is automated is not economically sensible for a human to do. - Freelancing and consulting gigs have huge overhead. - Uber drivers (for now) own the car but don't make most of the money. And they will be made redundant by self driving cars. - Medical services have the most overhead and require years of expensive training. - Making…

> Anything that can be economically automated will be. Yes, but when you can't pay the wonderful automated hospital its fees, you hire the local unemployed doctor (replaced by an automatic diagnostic system) and in lieu of payment, you go and fix his roof. My point is that there are going to be lots of unemployed people and they are going to work for themselves because they need to survive, because they got no money…

The trouble with all that is that we don't think about an alternative to "corporation extract the maximum economic value they can" (a.k.a profit).

One hope is that with sufficient automation and competition, the marginal cost on providing a diagnostic or other services might fall to close enough to 0 to be free. The value provided to society would be very high. The profits might be astronomical?

I agree that UBI or something like it is a necessity, but I'd rather live in a Star Trek "all needs provided for without currency exchange or social stigma" society rather than 5 trillionnaire families and 9 billions peoples surviving/mooching on UBI.

Increased automation has a high chance to be very expensive, in the "printer cartridge" kind of way. Cheap "robot". Expensive maintenance and consumables.

I wish you're right, and that corporations will not go full "Bacigalupi" and patent everything from the plant we are allowed to grow to the brand of electrons we're allowed to put in our robots.

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

#202

Post by nnd »

jokoon wrote: post #5

There is a difference between a job you like, and a job you do because you believe "work sets you free" or because you believe work is a some sort of value or a necessary pain everybody has to take part in. 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 thi…

> and economies might change because people stop consuming

How an economy heavily based on excessive consumption is a good thing?

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

#203

Post by nico_h »

nhaehnle wrote: post #182
nico_h wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cre…

Well, we already have a form of "social credits". It's called money. We're just not used to thinking of it that way, but that's really what money is. So replace "social credits" in your line of thinking by money, and you've basically arrived at the idea of a Job Guarantee. And somebody who works for their money is no longer a moocher, so...

The flaw in this analogy is that the current top earners (CEO, traders, White collar) net contribution to society has no correlation with the money they extract from the system. Does a CEO improving his company market value by firing people have the same contribution to society as a paramedic saving a life, a nanny taking care of a baby so the parents can work or a teacher educating kids?

These are highly valuable services provided to society that are not rewarded in either status or the current social credits.

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

#204

Post by eli_gottlieb »

nhaehnle wrote: post #177
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your response is kind of frustrating because I feel we're on the same side of this, but you're just not getting it. It's like you have a knee-jerk reaction about what a job is, and there's a blindspot where you don't envision what it could be. When a plumber gets satisfaction from a good day's work of fixing piping in people's houses, do they get their purpose in life / sense of being needed and useful (note: not the…

>When a plumber gets satisfaction from a good day's work of fixing piping in people's houses, do they get their purpose in life / sense of being needed and useful (note: not the same thing!) from an authority figure? Hell no, unless you think clients are authority figures.

>But they are getting this sense from their work.

I guess I wouldn't say that self-employed professionals have a job. I think of it as a self-employed versus wage-labor distinction.

>Full employment can offer such a social framework (if done right, of course), while a UBI can't (no matter how it is implemented). Who are you to deny this to other people just because they're different from you?

This is, of course, where we actually disagree. I think that while a UBI is by no means a perfect solution to human worth or psychological needs, it's a much better solution than "full" employment to people's material needs, while many many alternatives remain besides employment for the psychological needs. It's a continuous tradeoff made under uncertainty, and we should talk about where we believe the tradeoffs are.

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

#205

Post by justinclift »

DougWebb wrote: post #67
landryraccoon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 elit…

> All they have to do is be somewhat less greedy.

Or alternatively, implement something to stop the "elites killed, their wealth stolen [etc]" bit.

Completely co-incidentally :), technology to monitor/influence large numbers of people seems to be happening, and research/development/manufacturing of automated weaponry for the er... "self defence" of said elites seems to be on the agenda.

Gee, that sounds like it'll end well doesn't it. :(

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

#206

Post by hvindin »

Something thats probably worth pointing out, deciding that you are going to go into a specialty in criminal enterprise doesnt make you wealthy. The same amount of hard work is required to become a drug dealer and make a living as is required to do other jobs and make as adequate living, actually it requires a lot more work.

Obviously this is not relevant to the entire article, but I would suggest doing something like reading freakonomics before making what are imperically wrong statements.

Not that I dissagree entirely with the overall argument made by the article. I just feel like some of the examples could have been researched a little more.

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

#207

Post by remir »

aidos wrote: post #190
JulianMorrison wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I resent the idea that my surplus labour is anyone's but mine to spend. Certainly you could create infinite amounts of "paid" makework but in the end it amounts to keeping a system going for its own sake, and wasting people's potential by allocating them "dig a hole and fill it in" jobs when they could be being creative.

I think you've take the uncharitable view of an implication that everyone is forced to work to fill up hours. Realistically there are loads of things that could be done to make the world a better place. Equally there are lots of people out of work. If someone can provide the funds to marry those things together, it's a win win. But who pays? Maybe Apple could go all philanthropic and depart with all that cash they're…

Bingo. It's not a work problem; there's so much work to do. The problem is who will pay and how much.

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

#208

Post by throwaway729 »

intopieces wrote: post #108
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…

Probably the McKinsy report: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/UXC...

Most notably, the number comes from self-reporting. So this could range from "barista" to "sales" to "software engineer".

I'm not particularly surprised when someone's first job out of college doesn't make use of their education. But there's a huge difference between a business major going into sales to learn an industry (or a code monkey stuck on a boring project they could've worked on in high school), and an English major becoming a taxi driver.

In short, from the data, it's impossible to distinguish between "putting in your time" or "bad first assignment", and "actually under-utilized".

* This doesn't generalize well to STEM graduates, where the numbers are closer to 75%.

IMO the GP's assessment that we've reached "peak school" is absolutely incorrect. Rather, we've seen a big shift in the type of labor that's needed in a short time frame. If a freshly minted college grad can fetch $100,000+ and great benefits, then "peak school" isn't a real problem yet.

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

#209

Post by carsongross »

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…

I think Steve keen is worth reading.

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

#210

Post by knieveltech »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #170
chadcmulligan wrote: post #136

Maybe a better approach is how can we spend the surplus labour? There are lots of things I see need doing looking around my neighbourhood - public parks need cleaning up, old houses could be torn down and make some nice new ones, old roads could be fixed. Probably stacks of other things. Maybe some creative accounting will enable us to do these things? I know national parks near me have great paths that were built in…

I agree with this sentiment. There is a lot of work that needs doing. There are also a lot of parents out there with young children who could use a nanny. There's a need for more therapists, or just people to talk to. There's a lot of work that needs doing. There's an abundance of people to do the work, and I feel like we have plenty of natural resources. It seems to me that we could build housing for everyone, we ha…

There is no need for additional construction to meet housing demand. In the continental US there are something like 6 empty units for every homeless person in the country. In turn this means there is no pent up demand for building materials, so putting people to work in forestry, quarry, cement, steel, etc is also a non-starter. Global food surplus indicates there is no pressing need to put additional people to work in agriculture. I'm not certain that there is pent up demand for 3.5 million new nannies or therapists in the country, which is a relevant number as that's roughly how many OTR truckers that are on the cusp of losing their livelihoods to automation. There simply isn't enough work to go around.
Post reply on HN