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

371–380 of 576 posts

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

#371

Post by gordaco »

RyanZAG wrote: post #360
kazagistar wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limitless is not quite right: at some point, the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it. Of course, if we take away that constraint through some means, like for example basic income, then the same problem remains in a different form; the value of the work drops below the level that a human can be bothered to do it. Because this minimum exists, there is indeed a finite amount of work, a…

Except we've redefined what "the level at which a human can subsist on". Go 50, 100 or 200 years back and look at the kind of life most citizens lived. It was far below what even a person without a job today has - and a person without a job has an incredible amount of free leisure time compared to the 18 hour days that were common even 100 years ago. The simple fact is that welfare and minimum wages have removed many…

Not really. I think most of the jobs are being lost because of the improvements in productivity. We need less people to do the same job, because we have a lot of machines and automation. So, even if there is more work to do (because there are more people on the Earth now than 100 years ago), there is relatively less "work per person" to do. I know this is not exact (lump of labor fallacy) but I think it explains a lot of what's happening right now.

The saddest thing, for me, is the effect on economy. Since the corporate earnings remain the same but the automation means that less workers get paid (and, when controlling for inflation, workers don't get paid much more, except in a few select industries), this means that the owners keep the rest, and this is why the gap between poor and rich people is widening so fast.

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

#372

Post by bbcbasic »

nico_h wrote: post #133
bbcbasic wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass houses. Monsanto. Mc Donalds. Uber. .... Not just wall street doing unethical stuff so why pick on them and call them gangsters?

Maybe because they made their money playing with imaginary numbers and caused huge amounts of harm to the economy and lots of people when it all blew up in their face?

And the harm obesity is causing? Arguably just as bad.

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

#373

Post by adwn »

gregpilling wrote: post #328
edblarney wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of course a robot could do those things. Those are very easy things to do. " Sorry, but no. Very, very hard. + Find my fridge + Open it + Find the meat + Find the bread + Open the mayo + Get a knife + Spread it etc. etc. etc. Even if you do it 'the machines way' it's extremely difficult. No way. Not for quite a while. Much harder than 'driving a car'. Without proving it directly - let me do it indirectly: Factories…

If you get to do it "the machines way", then you get this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPTwpLIpDWE I agree with the idea that we are 20 years away from a walking talking robot. One that could find the fridge, figure out which mayo is the good one, and which mayo has gone bad. The get the right ham, not the crap the kids like, and find the knives. Where are all the knives? And then put the stuff away, so nobody c…

> If you get to do it "the machines way", then you get this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPTwpLIpDWE

Those are some of the worst sandwiches I've ever seen – which confirms your point, I suppose.

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

#374

Post by euyyn »

clarry wrote: post #144
euyyn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think you have any duty to try not to live off welfare, as long as not many people do it?

I can think of all the bullshit jobs people do and then come to the conclusion that it'd be better for me to do what I can to contribute to society through research, participation in free software projects, volunteering, etc. Doing that I could be useful to thousands, maybe even millions of people. As opposed to, say, wasting the time of hundreds of people trying to sell them stupid magazines they don't need or want…

Most jobs are honest and do people a service, you don't even need to look hard or anything.

If you want impact, and can write software, there's plenty of well-paid jobs for that in the US; Silicon Valley and elsewhere. That not only lets you contribute taxes instead of living off them, it also helps you be more productive, focused, and impactful.

Is teaching a bullshit job? Installing solar panels in people's roofs? Doing the accounting that keeps a hospital working? Cooking or waiting in a small restaurant where the firemen next door have lunch?

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

#375

Post by Natsu »

kLeeIsDead wrote: post #285
cesarbs wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the bit that hits close to home to me: > they must demonstrate commitment above and beyond their contracted work hours, and express constant satisfaction and happiness about their work My wife and I are both software engineers and that is a nearly constant source of stress for us. In our experience, people in our field frown upon people who treat software engineering as just their job. Two things I recall fro…

I thought the call-center example was dumb too, but he got his point across. What you describe is the way I read it as well. That's why I don't think I'm going to pursue a career in software engineering despite doing it as a hobby since a young age. I think there'd be some irreversible damage to my brain if I used something I've liked and identified with for my whole life as a means to do something I hate. To me it s…

I dunno. I've done straight-up factory work, i.e. manual labor as well as IT.

Maybe I just have a good company, but I'd much rather do this than ever go back to factory work, even if the pay were better in the factory job.

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

#376

Post by adwn »

freehunter wrote: post #314
Cybiote wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a sandwich or cleaning a toilet is certainly not an easy thing to do. Getting a robot that can understand a scene, any scene and plan motions within it has been very difficult to do. Far more difficult than playing Go at a superhuman level for example. This is known by various names, with one common being the Moravec Paradox . The problem of energy storage further multiplies this difficulty.

I think we're getting confused on the definition of how the robot accomplishes its task. To clean a toilet like a human would, yeah that's difficult. To clean a toilet like a robot would, it's not. A toilet cleaning robot would have a spinning brush like a drill and would circle the bowl of the toilet a couple of times. Really, really easy thing to do. If a Roomba can clean my entire house, not fall down the stairs,…

> A toilet cleaning robot would have a spinning brush like a drill and would circle the bowl of the toilet a couple of times.

But that robot can't refill its consumables, it can't mop up the floor, and it can't deal with the mess after your semi-demented grandpa missed half the bowl. This solution is useful for a large rest stop with a dozen toilettes and thousands of customers per day (and employees that do the above tasks), and utterly useless for your own home.

> IMO there's no purpose to making a robot have the same physical constraints as a human. Our bodies are pretty shitty when you think about it. Robots can be much more elegant.

Our bodies have a huge advantage: they are incredibly flexible, and surprisingly strong for their dexterity. No robot we have ever built even comes close. You can have lots of robots in your home (Roomba, toilet bowl cleaner, dish washer, sandwich maker, a kitchen machine, uuh, is there anything else you can automate?) and you'll still need a human doing a lot of work. Or you can have a single human working half-time in your home, and you don't need a single robot. Give me a robot that can do 90% of all household chores, and I'm sold.

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

#377

Post by elementalest »

RyanZAG wrote: post #360
kazagistar wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limitless is not quite right: at some point, the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it. Of course, if we take away that constraint through some means, like for example basic income, then the same problem remains in a different form; the value of the work drops below the level that a human can be bothered to do it. Because this minimum exists, there is indeed a finite amount of work, a…

Except we've redefined what "the level at which a human can subsist on". Go 50, 100 or 200 years back and look at the kind of life most citizens lived. It was far below what even a person without a job today has - and a person without a job has an incredible amount of free leisure time compared to the 18 hour days that were common even 100 years ago. The simple fact is that welfare and minimum wages have removed many…

Welfare is meant to help provide a minimum living standard. Society generally agrees that living below these levels is not acceptable to allow (though perhaps survivable). It is therefore seen as more of a human right in western worlds.

Remove the ban? Watch a whole range of job wages plummet, and a whole range of people fall into poverty. People will have to work horrendous hours, or in horrendous conditions just to get enough to survive. This will only increase the income inequality, making it harder for the poor to make a living. The employment numbers may have increased - but at what cost? More civil unrest, more crime, more people in hopeless situations. Whilst you realise its not a good idea, you seem to trivialise it.

I'm sure the author did consider this point. They realised that - we didn't get here simply because we introduced welfare and minimum wage - and that getting rid of them isn't a valid approach to get to full employment. Its something so obvious its not worth discussing.

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

#378

Post by meekins »

cesarbs wrote: post #240
vacri wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the bit that hits close to home to me: > they must demonstrate commitment above and beyond their contracted work hours, and express constant satisfaction and happiness about their work My wife and I are both software engineers and that is a nearly constant source of stress for us. In our experience, people in our field frown upon people who treat software engineering as just their job. Two things I recall fro…

What bothers me the most about this is that passion and wish to work 9-5 are considered mutually exclusive. This feels like passion for software engineering just means passion for cranking out code for the company 24/7.

Of course this is just a personal anecdote but during heavier work weeks I have very little energy or interest in any spare time hacking. In contrast on normal 9-5 weeks I tend to do a lot more of reading, coding and other things that develop my professional skills and enable me to perform better in my day job.

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

#379

Post by [deleted] »

cesarbs wrote: post #240
vacri wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the bit that hits close to home to me: > they must demonstrate commitment above and beyond their contracted work hours, and express constant satisfaction and happiness about their work My wife and I are both software engineers and that is a nearly constant source of stress for us. In our experience, people in our field frown upon people who treat software engineering as just their job. Two things I recall fro…

[deleted]

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

#380

Post by vehementi »

reflexive wrote: post #369
snoman wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to give GP the benefit of the doubt and was only speaking of the people who don't like, or are not suited for, those positions. I think there's enough people that fit that description in any reasonably sized profession to make it a valid statement in that context.

Almost by definition, there are aspects of work that you don't like. The trick is to find meaning in your work so that you have the strength to complete it. The post seems to be suggesting that we should just eliminate all of the "least desirable" jobs, which is a fine idea as long as you realize that the next tier of jobs will then immediately become the "least desirable".

No it's just saying some people aren't happy with it and could do something else. Let's not focus on that bit, hey? Let's talk about the main point?
Post reply on HN