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

251–260 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#251

Post by thehardsphere »

Noumenon72 wrote: post #195
bennettfeely wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mandate reversible sterilization at birth. This sounds like an absolutely atrocious idea ripe for corruption. It would be only a matter of time before those programs target the poor, those who whose political views, religious views, or ethnic origins are unwanted or inconvenient.

In theory we could use food stamps to force people to do things on pain of starvation, but in practice we just do a little bit of drug testing sometimes. Meanwhile, the problems caused by unwanted babies are huge. If we could enact mass sterilization to reverse mass incarceration, the poor and ethnic would be better off even if they did face some discrimination in restoring reproductive access. Not to mention how muc…

How about instead of creating this dystopian hellscape where we make foodstamp recipients be sterilized, we simply reform the current welfare system so it stops trapping them in poverty and paying them to have more children?

Jesus. It's like some of you sit there and say "the status quo is horrific; let's just add a pinch more horror and everything will be swell."

Re: The Future of Not Working

#252

Post by marmot777 »

jon_richards wrote: post #115
rubicon33 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's cynical about it? I guess I must not understand what UBI is all about. I had thought it WASN'T a form of welfare. Rather, it's UNIVERSAL in nature. That would mean theoretically everyone from millionaires, to the poorest, would receive UBI funds. I'd love to be free from having to earn an income, so that I can work on my own projects (businesses). But who wouldn't, right?

One interpretation of UBI is reverse taxation, where you start off with a negative tax obligation instead of 0, and positive tax obligations are added on top of that, usually resulting in a positive balance. In that situation, is someone with a positive tax obligation really receiving UBI funds? What about if all taxes are raised slightly so that the majority of people's tax obligations remain unchanged? It all gets…

Yes, the "negative income tax" seems to be a mechanism by which to implement UBI. This idea has had champions on the left and right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Re: The Future of Not Working

#253

Post by rimantas »

apozem wrote: post #224
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. No. Forced sterilization is eugenics, and we've seen what happens with that [1]. Eugenics is unconscionable for moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian reasons. When you give government or the private sector or any human being the ability to control other humans' reproduction, that power is ripe for horrific abuse. We know this because that's exac…

Overpopulation will not be an issue. IIRC we are already past "peak child".

Re: The Future of Not Working

#254

Post by rimantas »

zouhair wrote: post #166
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.

Feed the homeless to the starving. Solves two problems at once.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#255

Post by marmot777 »

Clubber wrote: post #150
marmot777 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

I came back and read this. It sounds to me like your a pessimist. I can't say I blame you. I'm a natural optimist who's optimism has been strained to the limit. Do you see some paths that lead to reasonably good outcomes and stability?

Also, what puzzles me about for example those preaching hatred and stirring people up, is what it is that they want? Are they nihilists who just want to see everything in flames even if they burn too? Do they think they're somehow immune? Are they so blinded by ideology they actually think things will go the way their ideology says it will if only x, y, and z?

How could any human being, other than a sociopath or someone completely blinded by their ideology, possibly subscribe to authoritarianism of any kind? We now have access to all the information we need to find out the outcomes. Do they not at least attempt to grok Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, Kim Il Sung, et al? If it's ideology-induced blindness then there's hope.

If it's malevolent nihilism as then there will be no redemption.

To ideologues who want to dismantle the state, are you not familiar with the outcomes when states fail? Or do you think that we can't fail as bad or worse than other failed states such as Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Yemen? Do you think you are immune from violent death, disease, famine?

If the United States fails, we may well eat it more thoroughly in the end as there's no aid from governments or non-governmental organizations to even attempt to buffer us from failure.

We will, whether it's through concerted effort or no effort at all, take everyone down with us who thought their geopolitical position or other interest would benefit from hobbling us.

Do you think that all ideologies are wrong or just all ideologies are wrong except yours? Do you think you or anybody else really has the truth? How did you get your ideology and from whom? Why do you need it?

I feel hope when I talk to people who are free from the grip of ideology, who don't let others manipulate their thoughts and emotions. It's not the only thing that needs to happen but the more people who are free from the bullshit the better.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#256

Post by erikpukinskis »

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…

> With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute

People keep saying this, but why is it true? Why can't you just have 4 billion people making boutique food for the other 4 billion who are making boutique clothing in return?

Why can't you have 8 billion people making TV shows for each other while robot housekeepers keep them alive?

Mental health care alone would seem to me to be an almost infinite market in need of labor.

Is there some economic law that defines an upper limit on how much work there is to be done? I see seemingly infinite undone tasks around me.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#257

Post by [deleted] »

greendesk wrote: post #153
marmot777 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No i didn't say that was the first stage, I was assuming that they were going to test this with very poor people near the edge before they tested it with people higher up the income ladder. It's an assumption, possibly completely wrong. The second statement about sinking beneath the waves was there are people who are starving right as we speak even here in the U.S.

I am afraid of the situation where a person who is reasonably well decides to let go of opportunities in the presence of UBI. The parent post is a case in point - what if the person tries the startup idea; but since the person's livelihood is not on the line, the startup never lift offs? If UBI endangers the motivation of people 'higher in the income ladder', they are likely to become 'people near the edge'. Since UB…

[deleted]

Re: The Future of Not Working

#258

Post by rubicon33 »

greendesk wrote: post #153
marmot777 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No i didn't say that was the first stage, I was assuming that they were going to test this with very poor people near the edge before they tested it with people higher up the income ladder. It's an assumption, possibly completely wrong. The second statement about sinking beneath the waves was there are people who are starving right as we speak even here in the U.S.

I am afraid of the situation where a person who is reasonably well decides to let go of opportunities in the presence of UBI. The parent post is a case in point - what if the person tries the startup idea; but since the person's livelihood is not on the line, the startup never lift offs? If UBI endangers the motivation of people 'higher in the income ladder', they are likely to become 'people near the edge'. Since UB…

I'm really not convinced that one must have pains of hunger, or fear of eviction, in order to start a business successfully. Many people have founded businesses while already having been quite wealthy. Elon Musk, to name just one.

I'd also argue, that there are many people who would like to start a business but are trapped by the aforementioned hunger pain, and rent dues. They can't take the necessary time to build a business, because they're too busy making ends meet.

I happen to be very lucky, and can work on my side goals after work in the evenings, and on weekends. I'd be much further along though, if I could quit my job, and live modestly, while building my business.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#259

Post by marmot777 »

thehardsphere wrote: post #180
marmot777 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government. I don't know where you live but I'm in the U.S. where it's obvious the number of jobs is going to decline relative to the number of people who need them. Resources won't necessarily decline along with the jobs so I see this as not just applicable to the d…

> How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government. Let's work through an example. North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world, and many people starve there every year. It's also a ruthlessly oppressive totalitarian state; the government decides who can enter and leave the country. The gover…

Fair enough, the universal basic income would not work in a number of countries that are either failed states on one side or authoratarian on the other, but much of civilization, including the developed world, falls in the zone where this program might work and is at least worth testing. I accept your premise that this can't work unless some minimum conditions are met.

Given that, do you toss the whole idea or do you think it could work in places like Kenya and the United States?

Re: The Future of Not Working

#260

Post by tasuki »

rimantas wrote: post #253
apozem wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth. No. Forced sterilization is eugenics, and we've seen what happens with that [1]. Eugenics is unconscionable for moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian reasons. When you give government or the private sector or any human being the ability to control other humans' reproduction, that power is ripe for horrific abuse. We know this because that's exac…

Overpopulation will not be an issue. IIRC we are already past "peak child".

Source: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies
Post reply on HN