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

271–280 of 576 posts

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

#271

Post by srtjstjsj »

msandford wrote: post #215
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…

Yes of course, specialization increases abundance. But if you read the given examples it wasn't suggested that farmers make their own diesel. But rather that they own their land and equipment. Same for plumbers, it's advocated that they own their own tools. Basically it's lamenting the lack of small businesses. That's not really wrong either. Diversity in business ownership might not be maximally "efficient" in certa…

What's special about energy that makes it OK to rent, but not a tractor? (I can't buy a lifetime supply of diesel any more or less than I can pre-pay for a lifetime tractor rental)

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

#272

Post by edblarney »

sqldba wrote: post #231
edblarney wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. " This is pragmatically not true. There are tons and tons of jobs that can't be done by computers. The 'entertainment sector' was not even a part of the economy 100 years ago. Now it's a big chunk. Think of how big sports are. That…

The whole "computers can do anything" theme in the original post and the comments is borderline retarded and describing a mythical state always one or two decades in the future. Teaching a computer to do anything is fucking HARD. And most of the time the problems are just unsolvable. Sure you see cool demos like one that can cook for you. That shit is awesome. So uhhh... where are they? They're demos and proofs of co…

Ya.

Whenever anyone talks about 'the singularity' (i.e. computer consciousness) I usually respond with "get your bot to make me a goddam ham sandwich and clean my toilet!" - then we can talk!

But let's avoid calling people 'retarded', eh :)

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

#273

Post by srtjstjsj »

jondubois wrote: post #135

I agree with the characterization of investment bankers and hedge fund managers as 'gangsters'. I'm tired of hearing these people rationalize their work as being 'to allocate capital efficiently' - Their real job description is 'to dilute real value and centralize capital'. These people don't create jobs; they transfer jobs from small businesses to big corporations. Those big corporations gain market share not by off…

> small businesses to big corporations.

What's wrong with that? I want a job that pays well, I don't care how many people share ownership or how large the separate units of ownership are.

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

#274

Post by srtjstjsj »

jondubois wrote: post #135

I agree with the characterization of investment bankers and hedge fund managers as 'gangsters'. I'm tired of hearing these people rationalize their work as being 'to allocate capital efficiently' - Their real job description is 'to dilute real value and centralize capital'. These people don't create jobs; they transfer jobs from small businesses to big corporations. Those big corporations gain market share not by off…

> small businesses to big corporations.

What's wrong with that? I want a job that pays well, I don't care how many people share ownership or how large the separate units of ownership are.

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

#275

Post by freshhawk »

grzm wrote: post #252
bertiewhykovich wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good and not at all insane that I make $100,000/year for dicking around on a computer every day. Those poors just aren't creating value.

Snide comments like this do nothing to promote constructive discussion. Please post civilly or just don't.

This should be aimed at me just as much then. My comment was more snide if anything.

Also, I disagree, irony has its place and one of them is to poke fun at commonly held but profoundly mistaken beliefs that result in widespread suffering. Even if that has a high chance of offending people who don't like smart ass comments chipping away at the pedestal holding up their privilege.

I'm sure you meant well, and I'm not attack you. I have noticed that often cutting jokes are considered acceptable here only when they align with certain political beliefs, and I feel it's eminently constructive to politely push back on that, so please take this as my intent.

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

#276

Post by BurningFrog »

tomp wrote: post #198
BurningFrog wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> economics is not a physical science where you can run A/B tests on an economy and find results The is broadly true of Macro Economics. This might even be impossible as a science, since the object of study (world economy and markets) is aware of its findings, and adapts around them. Micro Economics, or "Price Theory" as it maybe should be called, is OTOH a very powerful science that gives deep and counter intuitive…

Are you sure about microeconomics? AFAIK, only recently have economists started to use behavioral economics (psychology & game theory) to logically explain empirical behaviours that were previously thought of as irrational. It doesn't really seem to be a solved problem.

I'm not a real economist, just a really interested amateur.

My impression is that "behavioral" economics is a promising field that can help explain some unusual phenomena. But it doesn't change the solid core of the science.

I think it gets talked about like that sometimes by people who don't like the implications of the established science. Much like what happens with Climate Change and Evolution when any seemingly contradictory study appears.

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

#277

Post by srtjstjsj »

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...

Distributivism is the classic American Dream: own your own home and small business. It's a "balance of power" that resists hegemony.

To create a distributive economy: taxing the wealth, and have strong anti-trust law, and strong individual rights (but not "Koch/Soros" style individual writes to extreme amounts of speech rights in the form of lobbying dollars).

America's greatest success has come from its distributive policies. Sadly, we are moving away from those.

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

#278

Post by freehunter »

vacri wrote: post #230
cesarbs wrote: post #212

Another good read on the topic: http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/political-science/t... I like this bit: "the knowledge worker is under severe external constraints. Much of their work is assisted or mediated through information technology, which contributes to a de-skilling of their cognitive labor. And on top of this they are expected to fully invest themselves in their jobs in a way that manufacturing labor…

Are you serious? Knowledge workers have it easy . It's hard to get here, but once we're here it's a great gig. We're paid well, we're in demand, and there's a robust freelancing sector to our industries, be it software, legal, medical, engineering, or whatever. That link describes a call center worker as a knowledge worker. That's absolute nonsense. You could, in theory, argue that a call center worker is about manag…

Actually the more specialized you get, the harder it becomes. Think of all the mainframe guys who saw that technology disappear before they retired. Either they were independently learning a new skill by themselves so they could move from Senior Mainframe Developer to Junior Frontend Rockstar (with the appropriate pay cut), or they're now unskilled workers at McDonalds.

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

#279

Post by BurningFrog »

thesagan wrote: post #256
thesagan wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love you. :) Seriously, though, your econ mind is on the same track as mine. "Economics" is a pretty broad brush, and it's difficult engaging in meaningful discussion. You make a great point: The "economic system" is conscious and reacts/adapts to internal and external changes, which changes the rules, and the meta rules, and the meta meta meta....

Can't edit my original comment – sorry about the 'I love you', that's a bit over the top. I might've had a drink earlier. ;)

I know you can find love in unlikely places, but I never thought it would find me in the comment section!

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

#280

Post by srtjstjsj »

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…

The "own your own stuff" part is a misdirection. What matters more is that there should be a competitive market for consumer / small business stuff, so no one pays usurious/extortionate rents.
Post reply on HN