Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Not Working

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#161

Post by dvtv75 »

bredren wrote: post #48
marmot777 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who occasionally publishes in minor publications, I know editors pick headlines and don't always do the best job of reflecting the content. I think editor's goal is to get as many people to read it as possible so they might take some liberties.

Def do not blame the writer(s). Editors don't just change headlines. In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine. Editors will do anything they think makes a piece more ready for contemporary mass consumption.

> In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine.

Speaking as someone who has had to write headlines, there can be very strict guidelines we have to adhere to. Masculine is still the default neutral in professional English, in a number of places I've worked at.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#162

Post by Clubber »

skybrian wrote: post #129
guntars wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this sentiment a lot and it saddens me because it's a) extremely dark and b) generalizes and simplifies the motivations of large groups of people. Of course the wealthy are going to lobby for lower taxes, only a dumdum in their situation wouldn't. They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.

Um, cite? I'd expect most wealthy Democrats aren't lobbying for lower taxes, because that's a Republican belief. Famous billionaires who have spoken in favor of higher taxes include Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Speaking and lobbying are completely different things. You and I speak, ExxonMobile lobbies. Guess where half of congress (slightly more) currently stand on global warming?

Re: The Future of Not Working

#163

Post by Clubber »

guntars wrote: post #125
Clubber wrote: post #6

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings.…

I see this sentiment a lot and it saddens me because it's a) extremely dark and b) generalizes and simplifies the motivations of large groups of people. Of course the wealthy are going to lobby for lower taxes, only a dumdum in their situation wouldn't. They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.

>They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.

Heh. Now who's generalizing? (sorry, a little snarky). There's a little over 500 billionaires in the US. Gates and Buffet are on record pledging to do this, as are some of their friends. That's a whole lot shy of "most."

Re: The Future of Not Working

#164

Post by coding123 »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #158
Razengan wrote: post #135

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…

That's a very classist attitude founded on a view of economic activity that pertained to human history only over a short period of tube and otherwise is a completely unrealistic view of the human condition. Humans are amazing creatures. Moreover there is no limit to the work that can be done, there is always something else that can or should be done should the labor become available. I can assure you, people will not…

While I dont agree with everything this comment or said, I definitely see that most people in the US (because that's where I live) are typically either tellers, paper pushers, execs... Hardly anyone does anything actually meaningful it seems. There is like 3% that seems to be in endeavor fields like science, exploration, invention... But most of what I see is completely meaningless drone work.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#165

Post by mynameishere »

tn13 wrote: post #137
spyckie2 wrote: post #8

The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to basic income but meeting fundamentally different needs in a very different part of the world. That said, I think it is a fascinating anthropological read. We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.

As Milton Friedman would say we are standing on the shoulders of the giants. People who came to these shores with almost nothing and built this amazing economy.

It doesn't really matter, but I just hate when some old cliche is attributed incorrectly to someone modern as if it was clever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...

Re: The Future of Not Working

#166

Post by zouhair »

Razengan wrote: post #135

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.

Jesus fucking Christ, let's just round up all that don't have jobs and kill them all it'll go faster.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#167

Post by rorykoehler »

greyman wrote: post #157
Razengan wrote: post #135

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…

> not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation I don't know if this statement is true, but a lot more jobs could be created in the area of teaching, caring for elderly and ill people, etc.

I wonder if compulsory national service in these areas for individuals who don't contribute over x% or $yy.. in personal income tax a year would work?

Re: The Future of Not Working

#168

Post by adrianN »

cannonpr wrote: post #143
Razengan wrote: post #135

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…

are you honestly suggesting that a large part of the population can be trained to become research mathematicians?

Re: The Future of Not Working

#169

Post by zouhair »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #158
Razengan wrote: post #135

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…

That's a very classist attitude founded on a view of economic activity that pertained to human history only over a short period of tube and otherwise is a completely unrealistic view of the human condition. Humans are amazing creatures. Moreover there is no limit to the work that can be done, there is always something else that can or should be done should the labor become available. I can assure you, people will not…

Exactly. People are talking that there is no jobs like if everyone in the world have a roof on their heads, have enough food to eat, have good education and so on and so forth. Just those basic things are a huge amount of human activities.

The problem is not no jobs, the problem is political will and priorities. Right now most of the wealth created by all humans goes to a tiny minority that has different priorities than the rest of humanity.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#170

Post by tn13 »

mynameishere wrote: post #165
tn13 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Milton Friedman would say we are standing on the shoulders of the giants. People who came to these shores with almost nothing and built this amazing economy.

It doesn't really matter, but I just hate when some old cliche is attributed incorrectly to someone modern as if it was clever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...

I am aware the original phrase belongs to someone else but mentioned milton here because he said in the exact specific context of economic situation in USA.
Post reply on HN