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

More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#111

Post by djschnei »

zxcmx wrote: post #110
djschnei wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok, guys. You win. Individuals don't look at public economic policy through ideological lenses and these ideological lenses certainly don't have loosely definable goals. A capitalist and a socialist ideologue, while advocating for public policy, definitely don't have a desired state they are shooting for.

I apologise, I think I ended up talking past you. When you wrote "economic systems" I read that as a statement about actual economies instead of what you actually wrote.

No worries, don't think I said "system" in my original comment, enough blame to go around :)

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#112

Post by robotresearcher »

ThomPete wrote: post #104
robotresearcher wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be a shame to suppress or resent improved productivity from automation because the local social policy was messed up. A nation made wealthy from technology could choose to organize its healthcare differently.

Yes but that doesen't solve the problem. For single payer healthcare to work people will need to make more money. The more money they make on mundane things the more likely they are to be replaced by automation. It's a vicious cycle.

People make less money in Canada, the UK, Netherlands, etc. which all have single payer. It's cheaper.

I'm not saying it's easy to get there. But it can be done by popular will.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#113

Post by s73ver »

djschnei wrote: post #109
s73ver wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy discussion aside, what is going to be done for those displaced to automation? The whole "what is the goal of the economy" talk is nice, but at the end of the day, there are millions of people who are going to be unable to feed and house their families because of automation. What is going to be done for them?

Are you asking what can be centrally designed/planned to soften the blow of technological progress for those whose professions become obsolete? To that question, I would say nothing. And this isn't from a philosophical POV; it's from a very pragmatic/logical POV (which admittedly seems cold at first glance). Pragmatically, these kinds of questions have to be weighed by net-harm vs net-good. By stifling innovation or…

I'm going to have to completely disagree with the idea that we can't do anything to soften the blow. And note that nowhere have I called for progress to be halted or regulations preserving "obsolete" jobs to be enacted. However, we must do something to help these people either retrain or otherwise supporting their families.

In terms of net-good vs net-bad, I would consider it to be enormously net-bad to simply cast these people aside, and not help them at all.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#114

Post by s73ver »

jganetsk wrote: post #106
s73ver wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is orthogonal to this discussion. Mainly because I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. So we need to find other solutions.

> I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. The United States House of Representatives passed a Basic Income bill written by Richard Nixon in 1969. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak

Do you think the same bill today would have anywhere near a chance of passing? I don't.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#115

Post by djschnei »

s73ver wrote: post #113
djschnei wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking what can be centrally designed/planned to soften the blow of technological progress for those whose professions become obsolete? To that question, I would say nothing. And this isn't from a philosophical POV; it's from a very pragmatic/logical POV (which admittedly seems cold at first glance). Pragmatically, these kinds of questions have to be weighed by net-harm vs net-good. By stifling innovation or…

I'm going to have to completely disagree with the idea that we can't do anything to soften the blow. And note that nowhere have I called for progress to be halted or regulations preserving "obsolete" jobs to be enacted. However, we must do something to help these people either retrain or otherwise supporting their families. In terms of net-good vs net-bad, I would consider it to be enormously net-bad to simply cast t…

Not being able to centrally plan/organize the economy to help those "victimized" by progress is very different than not being able to help at all. What do you propose that wouldn't act as a handicap on the economy overall?

Also, interested if you took a look at that chapter I posted. Interested in your take.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#116

Post by s73ver »

djschnei wrote: post #115
s73ver wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to have to completely disagree with the idea that we can't do anything to soften the blow. And note that nowhere have I called for progress to be halted or regulations preserving "obsolete" jobs to be enacted. However, we must do something to help these people either retrain or otherwise supporting their families. In terms of net-good vs net-bad, I would consider it to be enormously net-bad to simply cast t…

Not being able to centrally plan/organize the economy to help those "victimized" by progress is very different than not being able to help at all . What do you propose that wouldn't act as a handicap on the economy overall? Also, interested if you took a look at that chapter I posted. Interested in your take.

I didn't have time. But, as I've said many, many, many times, I'm not trying to stop automation and machinery from advancing. So please stop insinuating that.

I am saying that we MUST, absolutely MUST find some way to assist those who are displaced because of automation. Those people still need to support families, pay rent, buy food. If we decide that "increased productivity" (read: increased profits for owners) is more important, then we need some way for these people to be able to remain in their homes. If we don't, then we might as well shoot them all as soon as their job becomes obsolete. It would be less cruel.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#117

Post by bduerst »

s73ver wrote: post #87
bduerst wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs are not zero sum - the demand for labor is a function of supply. People will begin to fill more niche and variable-demand jobs where capital investments don't make sense, i.e. a shift towards a consultant economy. Keep in mind that the specifics of this is very hard to predict. A large number of the jobs we have today would have seemed absurd 20-40 years ago, but to us they feel like they were inevitable.

Except there are going to be far, far fewer of those positions than there are people displaced by automation.

> the demand for labor is a function of supply

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#118

Post by bduerst »

petra wrote: post #60
bduerst wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs are not zero sum - the demand for labor is a function of supply. People will begin to fill more niche and variable-demand jobs where capital investments don't make sense, i.e. a shift towards a consultant economy. Keep in mind that the specifics of this is very hard to predict. A large number of the jobs we have today would have seemed absurd 20-40 years ago, but to us they feel like they were inevitable.

What popular jobs.that we have today would seem absurd 20-40 ago ,for someone.with an eye into.the future , say a science fiction writer?

SEO specialist, Mobile App Developer, Etsy artist, Drop shipper, additive manufacturing engineer, HFT quant, Lyft driver, etc.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#119

Post by djschnei »

s73ver wrote: post #116
djschnei wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being able to centrally plan/organize the economy to help those "victimized" by progress is very different than not being able to help at all . What do you propose that wouldn't act as a handicap on the economy overall? Also, interested if you took a look at that chapter I posted. Interested in your take.

I didn't have time. But, as I've said many, many, many times, I'm not trying to stop automation and machinery from advancing. So please stop insinuating that. I am saying that we MUST, absolutely MUST find some way to assist those who are displaced because of automation. Those people still need to support families, pay rent, buy food. If we decide that "increased productivity" (read: increased profits for owners) is…

I gave a vital piece of criteria for the assistance you're too busy to discuss; I didn't insinuate anything. Also, you clearly didn't read the passage I posted, which is cool, but lots of the points your making are addressed there (and I believe, shown to be faulty logic). Have a good one!

'profits for owners'... yawn...

'shoot them the second their job is obsolete'... your inner communist is showing ;)

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#120

Post by s73ver »

djschnei wrote: post #119
s73ver wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't have time. But, as I've said many, many, many times, I'm not trying to stop automation and machinery from advancing. So please stop insinuating that. I am saying that we MUST, absolutely MUST find some way to assist those who are displaced because of automation. Those people still need to support families, pay rent, buy food. If we decide that "increased productivity" (read: increased profits for owners) is…

I gave a vital piece of criteria for the assistance you're too busy to discuss; I didn't insinuate anything. Also, you clearly didn't read the passage I posted, which is cool, but lots of the points your making are addressed there (and I believe, shown to be faulty logic). Have a good one! 'profits for owners'... yawn... 'shoot them the second their job is obsolete'... your inner communist is showing ;)

Said the guy who said we shouldn't do a thing for people displaced by automation. If that's the case, and they're unable to get jobs elsewhere, what else should we do with them? Just leave them to starve on their own?
Post reply on HN