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

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

#491

Post by reflexive » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 7:43 PM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #380

reflexive wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Everyone could be happier doing something else. The main point is: if you want other people to maintain the apartment building where you live, drive you around on the bus, grow your food and deliver it to the supermarket - you need to be prepared to do something useful in return.

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

#492

Post by reflexive » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 7:45 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #485

reflexive wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if you could work on startup ideas and software projects simply because you were passionate about solving a problem or creating something, and not because of the money. I've been in this position, and I've concluded: if you really have no financial constraints, you'd be daft to spend your time working on a startup, or solving the dull, pedestrian problems that are of such utilitarian concern to society. If yo…

That's a false dichotomy. Even with, say, UBI, you can still pay people to work on important problems.

I'm not arguing against Universal Basic Income - provided that, in practice, the proportion of people who elect to work for money remains relatively high.

I am arguing against the idea that we don't need money to create incentives.

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

#493

Post by henrikschroder » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 7:48 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #189

henrikschroder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it. It's a pretty flimsy disguise though. If people are simultaneously complaining about bad infrastructure and high taxes, then they are simply saying that they want their earned money themselves more than they want to use it for shared infrastructure projects. People would just rather have the latest iPhone than good highways. :-/

>If people are simultaneously complaining about bad infrastructure and high taxes, then they are simply saying that they want their earned money themselves more than they want to use it for shared infrastructure projects. Sure, and the American people picked Trump as leader because they thought he was the most qualified person in the entire country.

I know you're being glib, but a lot of people voting for him actually hold this to be true. He is successful, therefore he is competent.

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

#494

Post by reflexive » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

wycx wrote: post #401

reflexive wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it I agree with this analysis; the question becomes: how do we value a person's contribution to society, if not by someone's willingness to pay their wages? I hope there is a solution in advanced tools for economic cooperation... imagine 90% of the population living off something like "GoFundMe for artists and educators". If we can't or won't fin…

If we can't or won't find such an answer, we then have the question: how many lives are we willing to subsidize who are contributing, by our best measures, a net negative to society? If you are posing this question from the implicit position as being one of those who are a net positive, reflect on how trivially chance could intervene and turn you into a net negative. I imagine a future where 90% of the population mus…

reflect on how trivially chance could intervene and turn you into a net negative.

All of us are a net negative some of the time. The question is, how many can be net negatives all of the time? 10x? 100x? One person supporting the entire rest of the human population?

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

#495

Post by thadjo » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

imglorp wrote: post #291

shin_lao wrote: post #284

When the steam machine was invented, it seriously disrupted Europe where most of people were working in the fields. Some people rebelled and destroyed these machines who "stole their jobs". Some thinkers thought it would be the end of work. There was a long and difficult transition period, but in the end, they were wrong. People moved to cities and did different jobs. New jobs. It will be the same over and over again…

Not this time. Automation really will replace people on massive scales because this time it's all of possible, cheap, and better. Pro drivers are first, 10m in the US. Fast food and retail are next. Imagine McD's and Walmart as drive-up vending machines.

I'm sympathetic to the 'not this time' argument but I don't think it has to do with the scale of technical disruption. At the beginning of the 20th century nearly half the labor force was in agriculture; now it's somewhere between 1-2%.

In terms of magnitude of displacement, I don't think what we are seeing now, or anticipate seeing in the next decade is of a different kind than what we saw with the mechanization of agriculture. What concerns me is:

  1) The rate at which these disruptions are occurring, and
  2) The ability for displaced labor to find other opportunities in the economy.

The shift from agriculture to manufacturing took place over decades and didn't require significant retraining. The shifts we are seeing now cut across a wide swath of 'unskilled' labor which is appears to be in a general decline. (I recommend checking out EconTalk episodes with David Autor and Erik Hurst: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/econtalk/id135066958?mt=...)

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

#496

Post by somestag » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 8:16 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #391

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?

Legally, I think no, I don't. Morally? I don't believe in morals.

Do you not believe in morals at all, or do you just not believe in universal morals? What about ethics?

I ask because your position takes on very different implications depending on exactly what you believe. In my experience, most people who say they don't believe in morals actually seem to believe very strongly in them; they just don't believe that the morals of the majority should be imposed on others who don't share the same values. I don't necessarily want to assume that's your position, though.

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

#497

Post by cuckcuckspruce » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 8:24 PM UTC

internaut wrote: post #403

stale2002 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are empty houses, but not in places where people want to live. There is absolutely a housing shortage in popular metropolitan areas (take your pick) . If there wasn't, then prices wouldn't be so high.

Why aren't we building down? Each plot owns the land beneath, yes? So build downwards if zoning prohibits building up.

Good luck doing that in Florida where places are already below sea level. Ever dug a hole that filled itself with salt water?

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

#498

Post by morgante » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 8:43 PM UTC

jcoffland wrote: post #356

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 don't want to work with you if you're a nine-to-fiver either. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with you for feeling this way but I don't want to work with people who don't love what they do. Edit: to clarify, by nine-to-fiver I mean someone who is just punching the clock in order to make a living but does not care much about what they are doing. I don't really care what hours you work if you're real…

It's really a shame you're being down voted for expressing a very legitimate viewpoint about who you'd like to work with.

Like you said, there's nothing inherently wrong with people who have other priorities or aren't passionate about their job. There are plenty of positions that they'd be a good fit for.

But it's equally true that if you're really passionate about your work (to the point where it's your top priority in life) you want to work with a team that is equally motivated. There's nothing wrong with that. A top professional soccer player would be unhappy if they were asked to work with a team of amateur high school players.

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

#499

Post by morgante » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 8:45 PM UTC

reflexive wrote: post #471

nathan_f77 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like everyone who downvoted you is missing the whole point of the article that was posted. The point is to imagine what your life would be like if you didn't have to work for money. Imagine if you could work on startup ideas and software projects simply because you were passionate about solving a problem or creating something, and not because of the money. And it doesn't even have to be something useful, or so…

Imagine if you could work on startup ideas and software projects simply because you were passionate about solving a problem or creating something, and not because of the money. I've been in this position, and I've concluded: if you really have no financial constraints, you'd be daft to spend your time working on a startup, or solving the dull, pedestrian problems that are of such utilitarian concern to society. If yo…

I get far more enjoyment out of working to fix actual problems for actual people than working on vaguely creative disputes.

Making a robust automated toll booth sounds a lot more appealing to me than making yet another programming language.

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

#500

Post by morgante » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 8:48 PM UTC

throwaway368 wrote: post #307

goatherders wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest frustration at work is the colleagues - most of whom are software engineers - that are inconvenienced when being asked to consider work outside of normal business hours. I don't really care if they are happy; that's what overpaying them is for. What I care about is getting one of them to answer the phone at 5:05pm on a tuesday and not getting a return call until 9:03 on a Wednesday.

This is exactly the kind of moronic bs that I haven't and will not put up with. Executives most of the time are paid, and compensated to be there 24/7. Software engineers are not. While founders and other execs have tendency to forget that - deal with it. I am there between 8am - 4pm, or 6am - 2pm or what ever it says in my contract. No more, no less. You want me to do extra hours, fine, most of the time happy to, yo…

Do you consider six-figure salaries "not paying for it?"

I have no doubt that if I wanted to work a strict 9-5 schedule I could easily do that as a developer. There are plenty of big companies which have a punch-in/punch-out system. They also pay less than market.

On the other hand, if I'm making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year then I think it's pretty damn reasonable for me to work longer hours and to be available at random times.