Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Not Working

nytimes.com

141–150 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#141

It's interesting how this runs counter to the two dominant political ideologies in the US. Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure out what they want, so the government should do it, both domestically and in foreign aid. Conservatives believe that the poor are poor because they are unintelligent and lack good values (or they are acting rationally in response to liberal welfare programs), an…

Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies. That ideology also strongly believes in personal responsibility, you are the master of your own outcomes. While there is a realization that yes, the system is rigged in favor of rent seeking and exponential accumulation, there is also the believe that at least some of the wealth is shared through 'trickle down' employment schemes. It is important to realize this 'sharing' is not a deliberate goal, but more like the man in the story hiring a day-laborer to help with his fishing, an accidental byproduct of accelerating rent-seeking wealth accumulation. The fishing aid is not hired for charity, but because the potential of the fishing net in maximizing return is higher even after deducting wages. He also has no concept of sustainability. His motive is immediate profit maximization, so he can go on hiring boats and fisherman until the lake is all fished up. By that time he'll be 'rich', probably living far away or at least long have crossed the threshold where is further wealth accumulation does not depend on any specific lake or industry. It is those hired fishing aids that will feel the brunt of this natural disaster, not the owner. Back to the US. What happens if trickle down stops because machines are better/cheaper/faster? What do you 'do' with 'people'? Let them starve in horrible circumstances while you hide behind big fences guarded by a ruthless G4S private army? Or do you somehow continue to trickle down? But on what basis? 'Meaningless' labor, just because you can't stand 'laziness'? Or do you provide the 'basics', like food, shelter, medicine, regardless of their inherently meaningless chore completion rate? I guess what it realy boils down to in the end is the question of what we believe 'being human' is all about.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#142

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

As long as important problems remained unsolved and human desires remain unfulfilled there will be opportunities to contribute.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#143

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

I do wonder about the "not everyone can contribute" perhaps they can't contribute in building cars, but with a cultural shift and education, well there are a lot of avenues of research and mathematics that only require thought and basic tools like chalk. I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources. This ofcourse assumes we haven't figured out strong AÍ or we don't want to, cause that's an entirely different chat.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#144

It's interesting how this runs counter to the two dominant political ideologies in the US. Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure out what they want, so the government should do it, both domestically and in foreign aid. Conservatives believe that the poor are poor because they are unintelligent and lack good values (or they are acting rationally in response to liberal welfare programs), an…

Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies. That ideology also strongly believes in personal responsibility, you are the master of your own outcomes. While there is a realization that yes, the system is rigged in favor of rent seeking and exponential accumulation, there is also the b…

> Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies.

I suppose that from 1992 until (but not including) 2016, looking from the outside only at major party Presidential nominees, it would be easy to miss the substantial dissent from the neoliberal consensus in the US (even within both major parties, and even in the segment of those parties in government.)

OTOH, since we elected an authoritarian populist whose economic approach blends mercantilist protectionism with corporatism, the idea that the only economic philosophy with any currency in US politics is neoliberalism isn't even something that relatively disengaged foreign observers can be excused.for.buying into.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#145

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

I do wonder about the "not everyone can contribute" perhaps they can't contribute in building cars, but with a cultural shift and education, well there are a lot of avenues of research and mathematics that only require thought and basic tools like chalk. I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources. This ofcourse assumes we haven't figured out strong AÍ or we don't want to, cause th…

Yes. We are made to be active (non-passive), so most people will choose to do _anything_ anyway. Might as well something that furthers our objectives.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#146
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really curious about the math on that $66 billion number. According to the world bank there are about 750 million people living in extreme poverty. We only need to give them $88/year to get them out of it? And that's just the people in "extreme poverty." It'll be even less if we move up the income scale a bit. The number seems low to me.

The doc [1] below agrees that there are about 700m in extreme poverty now, which it defines as living below $2/day. If we gave each of those people $2/day, we'd need $550billion/year. So yes, $66b seems low for the $2/day threshold. I wonder if this $66b is for those who are below $1/day. Looking at the plot in [1], we can guess that the number at $1/day is much lower; $66b would give 181 million people a dollar a da…

I think that $2 is purchasing-power-parity adjusted (they talk about "international-$"), which is even less in real dollars.

For an anecote on PPP vs real dollars, I remember that in the eighties in soviet-ruled Poland, an average monthly salary amounted to about $20. At the same time, the average standard of living was not that bad: most families had flats with central heating (no air-con though), education up to university level and healthcare were free, most families didn't have cars but public transport was cheap.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#147
As a form of foreign aid giving money directly probably works well. But idea that developing countries need basic income because of automation is just absurd.

If anything they need to get to work developing their country; those shacks are not going to be built by robots.

Fully developed countries on the other hand may face the situation where their country is so well run and have such a high level of automation and specialisation that there is too little work left for the population to be fully employed.

And thus they may lower their pension age, experiment with 30 hour work weeks, sabbaticals, maternity leaves, basic income and so on.

The countries that are closest to this are probably the Scandinavian countries. However at the moment they are all moving towards lower social transfers and higher pension age.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#148

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

>Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth.

So... they tried a little something like that back in the 30s and a lot of people didn't like it.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#149

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

They can fight each other for control of the robots.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comments. I understand your comments on money, but I suspect other modern economies will fair the weather much better than the US. The US wealthy have diversified their wealth in physical assets, gold, foreign currencies, etc; things that have intrinsic value outside of the US. Not only that, they can continue to manufacture in foreign lands and sell to foreign markets. Capital is mobile, labor is not. What the…

I think you've made some cogent points here. The '30s here were not deeply structural or were they? That is, during the Depression, there was always the potential to climb back closer to full employment. It was thought to be part of the business cycle. If automation takes way more jobs than it creates, possibly a lot more jobs, then nothing will jump start economy into jobs creating machine even if with higher econom…

>The '30s here were not deeply structural or were they? That is, during the Depression, there was always the potential to climb back closer to full employment.

Yes and no, I mean knowing the outcome certainly makes it seem that way. We certainly didn't have the economic knowledge we do today. 10 years of working at the problem had modest results and then a second recession occurred. The war spending was really what got us out of it. We supplied, at a nice profit, war material to England and France for two years before we got involved.

Back then, they (Hoover admin) believed the economy would take care of itself and did nothing (sound familiar?) Finally, Hoover (who was considered a brilliant businessman at the time) decided to enact a protectionist import tariff on Canada which was met with a retaliatory tariff on our goods and that was akin to throwing gas on the fire. A funny anecdote: Congress didn't do much about the dust bowl in Texas/Oklahoma until a 10,000 foot dust cloud was blown all the way from Texas/Oklahoma region, across half the continent, settling in Washington DC.

http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274

>Imagine the difference between well-fed activist headed to the pub after a protest vs. millions of displaced with no hope and nothing to lose.

Yes, I envision this as well, and on a massive scale. With the current militarization of the police in even the smallest towns, I fear, based on history, the local and state government would crack down hard on the protesting, a la Chicago riots in 1968 or the union busting in the early 1900s. Based on how authoritarian and stubborn the US government has become, it won't be long before they get involved and throw what remaining constitutional protections we have out the window. This could go on for years. Propagandists will continue to pit poor against poor along racial lines as they have been since after Bacon's rebellion and as they do today. Violence will begat violence and it might come closer to a 1930s Soviet landscape than we care to imagine as our government will see the protesters as "threats to democracy," and the "anarchists" moniker of the 1900s will come back and need to "be dealt with harshly." It will look foreign where you have the wealth class, the political / enforcement class, and everyone else. Only the last class will be the vast majority of the population, and as you said, starving. Not only starving, but oppressed, harassed and imprisoned. I don't trust our current government culture to handle this gracefully or intelligently. The biggest difference between now and the 1930s is that in the 1930s, the population trusted the government to act in their (citizen's) best interests, to their best ability. I don't think we're anywhere near that today.

As an aside, the Civil War had the benefit of a country versus a country; blue uniforms vs. grey uniforms. With this, if it comes to that, it would devolve into gurilla uprisings, not unlike the Arab Spring with the outcome of either side winning looking pretty ugly. I saw a photo that hit me like a brick. During the protests in Oakland, I believe, a young protester was wearing an Arab head scarf fashioned into mask like you would see in an ISIS video (Shemagh). I hope that wasn't a foreshadow of things to come.

>Nobody actively tried to make look stupid or applied ad hominem attacks, it's an earnestness here that I admire Earnest gets worthwhile work done so keep it up.

Yes, I really enjoy a good, thoughtful, intellectual discussion on the internet. This was the best discussion I've had in a while. I prefer discussing via typing rather than speaking, because I have time to research my own assertions as well as other's. HN is truly a pearl in a sea of mud.

Post reply on HN