Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, massive automation of tasks is going to cause a massive demand of programmers, developers and QA engineers, so no robot apocalypse yet. Basic income is not the solution to this problem because this is not a problem. The solution to this 'problem' is having a better education and making tech more accessible for everyone.
> In my opinion, massive automation of tasks is going to cause a massive demand of programmers, developers and QA engineers, so no robot apocalypse yet. The question is not how massive it is in absolute numbers, but how does it compare to the amount of jobs that are replaced by automation? And you know the answer to that question. If all jobs so replaced would create an equivalent number of "programmers, developers a…
Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
221–230 of 394 posts
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#222Suppose 30-year-olds make exactly the same as their parents did at 30. Then we would expect that barely half of 30-year-olds earn more than their parents did at 30. This title is stupid. It implies "oh hur dur the economy is so bad" when in reality it says nothing.
So, really it says that 1/2 the population is flat our worse off. Further, a rising tide lifts all boats is a complitly false analogy, and anyone using that phrase to talk about the economy is lying.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
All humans have a psychological need to be needed. The current way to best feel this is to provide income for yourself and your family through work, and provide a service for your employer. This is extremely satisfying for a majority of people. Take away work and these two things collapse. To get UBI to work, we need a new way for people to feel needed.
I disagree entirely that work is the best way to feel needed, and that feeling needed is necessary. I work because I have to, not because I care about working. If I didn't have to work, I wouldn't. I would spend time on personal projects and enjoying my life with my friends. Relationships are far better than work for "feeling needed". To be honest though, I don't care about being needed. I don't need to exist. I like…
I often see the sentiment shared on HN that if posters here didn’t have to work for a living they would be equally or more fulfilled working on their own projects or spending more time with friends/family, but in some ways I think this feeling at least partially correlates with intelligence, creativity, ambition, or simply being a confident well adjusted adult. I definitely get the impression that HN is filled with people on the higher end of the intelligence/creativity/entrepreneurial spectrum and that might be resulting in a particular narrative that doesn’t always hold true for the rest of us.
I would say that I definitely fall into the very bottom portion of intelligence/creativity among the readership here. I don’t really have much to contribute to this community beyond personal anecdotes, and I’m frequently in awe of the projects and overall knowledge I see on display here. As someone who isn’t smart or creative, never did well in school and has no formal education beyond high school, grew up in poverty and has been homeless for extended periods (12 months or more) twice in my life, doesn’t have a whole lot of self confidence or things to be proud of, my work (which involves machining and precision manufacturing) is pretty much the main thing that gives me a sense of self worth. For many people that statement may seem sad or somewhat pathetic, but it’s honestly how I feel.
I live in LA county, not exactly a low CoL area, and as a single person without dependents I can very comfortably survive on $1100-$1200 per month. BI could easily fulfill my financial needs but it wouldn’t do much to provide for the other things that my work provides for me, namely the sense of purpose and pride it gives me. I understand that BI doesn’t mean the end or work, or that people wouldn’t be allowed to work or seek out volunteer opportunities, so my comment isn’t a general critique of BI, particularly as the more I learn about it, increasingly from HN, the more optimistic and supportive I become of it, but a realization that while I think it’s effects would be very positive overall, I don’t think it would solve all of our problems. As a society we will still need to find ways to make people feel wanted. And as of now for many of us work is what fulfills that role.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, massive automation of tasks is going to cause a massive demand of programmers, developers and QA engineers, so no robot apocalypse yet. Basic income is not the solution to this problem because this is not a problem. The solution to this 'problem' is having a better education and making tech more accessible for everyone.
You are assuming you cannot be automated away, why?
Update: Here's a guy doing text recognition for localization: http://www.jebriggs.com/blog/2013/04/imug-computer-vision-an...
Also: http://browserbite.com/
Comparing screenshots from Selenium is a pretty nice way of doing it.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't going to happen easily. My experience: I've talked about this to many people (highly educated, smart people) - most of them are adamant on the idea that human beings absolutely have to work to deserve anything, even food and water. This might very well be anecdotal, but very few people get ideas like Basic Income intuitively. It would likely take tremendous amount to first make people understand, then acce…
People feel a natural obligation to be rewarded for their work. "Don't work, don't eat". The fact is, giving people a small income makes them inherently lazy. Lazy people don't like to work, but they will do just enough to get by, so if you give them a min amount of $, they'll do nothing. Others will look at that and say, "How come they get money for being lazy?" It actually acts as demotivation for people who would…
No it doesn't. Why do you think it does?
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you suggest to Walmart, Krogers, McDonald's workers and all Truck Drivers who will be displaced by automation in the next decade? Learn to code? Not everyone is cut out to be a coder, or has the money for education in the first place or the mentality to learn it online on their own. Truck driver is probably the first job to disappear, this is also the #1 job in about 30 states. Truck drivers also touch man…
> Truck driver is probably the first job to disappear, this is also the #1 job in about 30 states. That's not really true. This misconception came about from an NPR journalist who drew an infographic that appeared to show that truck drivers were the most common job in each state[0]. In reality, that infographic used BLS data - the BLS subdivides other professions to provide more granularity. In other words, all that…
Wow, seems like worse news to me. The number of self-driving trucks on the road today is probably low to zero, but the number of non-grocery retail stores closing every year, largely due to competition from Amazon (but also stagnant wages keeping demand low), is clearly in the thousands. I don't think it would be crazy to predict closings and automation within the stores that remain (e.g. Amazon Go) driving a collapse in jobs over the next decade.
Some numbers on closings in 2016: http://www.clark.com/major-retailers-closing-stores
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#227Compound that with the percentage of income 30 year olds spend on housing, education, health care and child care compared to their parents and we have a recipe for disaster.
The cherry on top is that our parents generation, who made more and had access to cheaper house, education, healthcare, etc., still barely saved for retirement. Unless, god forbid, your parents drop dead early, we are going to be stuck supporting them for a long time.
Hell, my grandfather had a defined benefits pension plan for his bar employees.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not their fault we make less, but they should have personal responsibility for their own retirement, especially since the massive amount of growth in housing value and the stockmarket over their lifetime.
Social Security lifted the responsibility of saving for their own retirement. It's not much use to blame them for following incentives.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tech sector is this nice bubble where we've seen lots of economic prosperity. If you look at the statistics you'll see that's not the case for a large swath of America.
Top 1% of income for a 30 year old (in the USA, in 2016) is, per this calculator, $188,000. https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/ In overwhelmingly most parts of the country, that's plenty of money to own a house and support a family.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? Actually no, though this is a fairly standard misunderstanding of statistics. For an easy counter-example imagine generation one being [0, 100] and generation two being [1, 2]. Average wealth goes down, while every element is higher than 50% of the previous generation.
This depends entirely on the underlying distribution of the data. In your example, the distributions are not at all similar, so it makes sense that you can't compare medians or averages between those populations. I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has.
If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged. But it has changed, see http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ or the source of your choice.
If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the percentage of the population receiving minimum wage would have gone unchanged. But it has changed, see http://www.weeklystandard.com/bls-percentage-of-hourly-worke... or the source of your choice.
I could go on... but I think that's probably sufficient. While I have you here, quick question: why did you let yourself get away with saying "I suspect" rather than just looking it up? It takes all of 10 seconds to do and once you get in the habit you'll be right way more often.
> I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has.
The metric in question isn't the distribution's median. It's the percentage of children earning less than their parents.
median: sup k : { Count(xi >= k) / Length(xi) earns more: Count(xi >= pi)/Length(xi)
These are very different values. So while I'll need to think more about the idea that medians say something about distribution similarities, thankfully those thoughts don't pertain here. For another example, of "earns more" not behaving the way you're expecting: if you set the earnings of everyone's parents to their wage - $0.01, we'd have a 0% "earns more" but extremely similar distributions.