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

541–550 of 576 posts

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

#541

Post by PeterisP »

reflexive wrote: post #338
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…

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…

"Contribution to society" is the main problem that needs a paradigm shift - if we look at 1900, then a system where economic subsistence is directly linked to a measurable contribution to society (whether by wages paid in capitalism or full participation in a collective society or whatever) makes sense.

However, if we look at year 2100 then it seems rather clear that a majority of population will not ever be able to make any real contribution to wider society whatsoever, since any job that they can do can be done better and cheaper by someone else (machines or other people - e.g. being a third rate guitarist is of no use if you have many first rate guitarists that also are eager to work for free) so there can be no practical, economic reason to ever choose them for any job.

Subsidizing people who aren't contributing to society seems the only humane option. Having them "contribute" to society in some artificial way is not a solution, since that policy by itself would be a net negative to society; Not subsidizing them is not a stable solution, since in the absence of any reasonable ways to survive they'll either starve to death or manage to violently overthrow the system.

In essence, the likely future involves the unprecedented scenario of billions of people who are, from an economic standpoint, absolutely unnecessary and a net economic negative to society; and the only (?) possible solutions seem to be either to accept that we'll subsidize them or exterminate them. Or, possibly, "others" will subsidize or exterminate us, as it's not set in stone on which side I or my kids will be.

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

#542

Post by asdfasdfa11112 »

morgante wrote: post #538
asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But now you're making a subjective statement about the pay. Without context (supply, demand, how much revenue you generate for your employer), how to determine what is highly paid? I fully reject the idea that more hours should be a requirement for good pay. Further, as a startup founder myself, I don't want my employees working much more than a 40 hour week. I have found* I prefer the work produced by someone with w…

No, I'm making an objective statement. If you are being paid more than the median American, and have options which would still pay more than the median while working less, then complaining about being overworked is ridiculous. There are simple solutions of just getting a different job. If you don't want people working more, by all means manage your company that way. The market will decide if its an effective strategy…

I don't share your opinion that because other people have it worse, you cannot be dissatisfied.

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

#543

Post by justinclift »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #428
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…

Same here: a gig of mine, as a contractor, just ended prematurely because the client asked why I didn't seem motivated, and I answered truthfully: the tools forced on us were the worst I have ever seen in my career (we were using Rational Rhapsody as an IDE, on Windows, for Linux development). The only alternative I saw was lying: it will pass, I'll re-motivate myself… Instead I merely promised to do my best, which n…

As long as you're ok financially until you get a new role, don't sweat it.

Hopefully moving out of a potentially er.. soul killing role (best wording I can think of) to something else will turn out to be the right move in hind sight. :)

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

#544

Post by justinclift »

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…

> invest your full time into raising and educating your own children - probably the most rational choice, with the least value to the rest of society.

That seems like a strange way to describe preparing the next generation. :D

Don't most people consider raising and educating their children to be one of the most valuable things to be done for society? eg having more knowledgeable/skilled/clueful young is better "for everyone" (as a generalisation) than not

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

#545

Post by justinclift »

TuringNYC wrote: post #361
pfarnsworth wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My colleagues have base pays > $150k/yr and I'm closer to $200k/yr. I consider myself very well paid, I'm grateful for it, and I'm available whenever I'm needed, within reason.

I once had a conversation with an HR manager in our Manhattan office, she was upset that the office cleared out at 5pm and how we didnt have a "banker's hour culture." I just nodded but knew the problem -- we had an underclass of workers, mostly H1Bs, on a tight HR-policy driven rate card, most making 2/3 or 1/2 that other workers were making. They made ends meet by living in outer New Jersey and commuting 2hrs each…

Did no-one explain the above to the HR person, or was she just resistant to common sense?

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

#546

Post by knieveltech »

vehementi wrote: post #381
knieveltech wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree all you want to, the market clearly finds your argument unpersuasive.

Yes, that's the point. "The market" is not a system that is suited for this. The market is not going to get people to make cool paths through parks, clean up the neighbourhood, etc. because the market doesn't derive shareholder profits from that at current wages. That work though is indisputably valuable stuff that could be done. Clearly, we have proven that there is plenty more work to go around and that the market…

I'm fairly certain that no proof of any kind has been presented that there is plenty of work just lying around waiting to be done. Idle speculation certainly, but proof?

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

#547

Post by knieveltech »

donall wrote: post #489
knieveltech wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have citations, particularly for housing? I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm genuinely interested in the sources because I have a sense that you're right but have never found great evidence to back it up. The raw number of residential-zoned buildings vs the number of homeless people is not as useful as it could be. I'd love to see some deeper analysis.

I initially ran across those numbers in a comment thread somewhere and spent some time researching them. To date I haven't come across a reputable source like the New York Times quoting them online but also wasn't able to find a snopes article demolishing the claim. I spent some additional time this evening looking up the base numbers:

Vacant units in 2016: http://www.realtytrac.com/news/foreclosure-trends/u-s-q1-201...

Snapshot of US homeless numbers (likely low): http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/SOH2016

Assuming these numbers are in any way accurate that leaves us with roughly 2 and a third houses per reported homeless person in the US.

So it looks like the initial statement may not be accurate but a housing surplus certainly exists.

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

#548

Post by vehementi »

knieveltech wrote: post #546
vehementi wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's the point. "The market" is not a system that is suited for this. The market is not going to get people to make cool paths through parks, clean up the neighbourhood, etc. because the market doesn't derive shareholder profits from that at current wages. That work though is indisputably valuable stuff that could be done. Clearly, we have proven that there is plenty more work to go around and that the market…

I'm fairly certain that no proof of any kind has been presented that there is plenty of work just lying around waiting to be done. Idle speculation certainly, but proof?

It's trivially true. Garbage men could pick up the trash 5x as often. Individual people could come cook for everyone. Parks could be maintained 10x as much. Trash collectors could clean up the streets all the time. More people could help the IRS catch crooks. etc. All of those things happen but 5x more people could do those jobs as well, but that would make them unprofitable to shareholders i.e. not worth paying someone minimum wage to do it. So this system doesn't get people to do that work.

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

#549

Post by euyyn »

jokoon wrote: post #528
euyyn wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't believe morality exists, or is that a fancy way of saying "I don't have morals?" Because the welfare and healthcare system you are looking forward to live off exists only because of morals.

I don't think they exist because of morals. If you want a country that is thriving, lower classes should have a good living standard. The lower class is the basis of any country. Even if you have very smart people at the top, they can't do a lot if the people under them can't count or have poor health. I believe that if you set a good minimum standard, it will trickle up. Also if you don't want riots in the streets,…

Universal free healthcare exists in Europe and not in the US, and I don't see any riots caused by it. Riots were not the reason it was established in Europe either. Same with education.

You can argue that it's economically beneficial for the higher classes in Europe, or convenient for the politicians. But even if it's the case (which is anything but obvious), that doesn't change the historical origin of those policies.

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

#550

Post by reflexive »

justinclift wrote: post #544
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…

> invest your full time into raising and educating your own children - probably the most rational choice, with the least value to the rest of society. That seems like a strange way to describe preparing the next generation. :D Don't most people consider raising and educating their children to be one of the most valuable things to be done for society? eg having more knowledgeable/skilled/clueful young is better "for e…

If that's the case, then your specialized economic role in society is purely as a professional breeder. Other people would need to see that you are contributing your fair share by raising your own family, and be willing to supply you with food, shelter, etc in recognition of this.

In fact people generally don't recognize this value. If I thought to myself, "That's a fair division of labor - I'll do the work, and instead of raising my own kids I'll support this guy's family" - my own genes would be removed from the pool pretty quickly (unless group selection pressure were so intense that this was the only way we could out-compete the neighboring villages).

On the other hand - if you were willing to raise my kids alongside your own (as a teacher or babysitter), there's a much better chance I'd see that as a fair exchange of value.

Post reply on HN