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

The radical idea of a world without jobs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 260 posts

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#171

Post by greggeter »

TuringTest wrote: post #81

In a world without jobs, there would still be projects. It's a fallacy the idea that people will not create things if they're not compelled by the risk of starving to death. The problem preventing a jobless society is the reverse: what happens to you if your personal projects are not valued by society enough to pay you for them, and therefore you can't sustain yourself from them? Someone without the skills to create…

1000x yes. People love to be productive. There will always be things to do and people willing to exchange money for time to do those things.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#172

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

bjourne wrote: post #161
jdietrich wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only one problem with that - it's not true. The author cites no sources for his claim and every source I've found contradicts him. The average number of hours actually worked has slightly declined in the US and significantly declined in Europe over the past few decades. In the broader historical arc, there has been a huge increase in leisure; the average working week throughout the 19th century was well in ex…

Though we work more than farmers did 150 years ago: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w... This was especially true in the Northern European countries where snow and lack of daylight would make it virtually impossible to work during the winter.

I feel like attempting to compare modern quality of life to 19th century farmers is a fool's errand. Maybe we're working through the winter, but, as a whole it's very unlikely to kill us so I'm inclined to take that trade.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#173

Post by baursak »

NoGravitas wrote: post #155
cdoxsey wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that help a poor worker in Bangladesh? In many of these countries people voluntarily choose to work in these factories. They're terrible places to work, but apparently its still better than working in the fields. A more effective strategy might be something like: https://www.ijm.org/who-we-are . They work within these countries to protect workers from the worst human rights abuses. (ie child sex trafficking…

You should read about [Enclosure][1]. Most people, historically, given the choice between traditional subsistence farming, and industrial labor, chose subsistence farming. So governments and property owners took away the option of subsistence farming. This was a 16th-19th century process in Britain, but is an ongoing process in poorer countries now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Here's a quicker, less dry article about it: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/yasha-levine-recover...

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#174

Post by Radim »

aalleavitch wrote: post #55
Radim wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean to say "for a short-term, monetary profit"? Because there are other types of profit, more subjective ones, like feeling good, emotional well-being, long-term sustainability etc, which are more elusive by definition but nevertheless super important. Because if you're really talking about a lack "profit" in the very general (aka inviting a straight loss), then the question simply becomes: Who will pay for t…

I think you answered this question yourself: some forms of value are subjective. Some vitally important benefits to the people around you don't show up on a balance sheet. People will gladly pay to be a patron of the arts, or just to make someone they like happy, and it doesn't have to involve a quantifiable return on investment.

I get your point, you're using the word "profit" in its narrowest accounting sense.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#175

Post by narag »

lmm wrote: post #170
throwanem wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, using figures from http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/ , if we take the top eight, sum their fortunes (conveniently expressed in billions), and divide by 3.6, we find that a maximally equitable redistribution would allocate, to each of the lucky recipients, the princely sum of $165.38 US. So, I'm going to guess the problem may lie somewhere other than with eight really rich people. But we…

> So, I'm going to guess the problem may lie somewhere other than with eight really rich people. Um, why? Because you're one of the lucky few to whom $165 is not a significant sum of money?

Because if this people gave away this money, the effect on the very poor might be noticeable for some months but not sustainable. In no time they would be very poor again and the ones that gave the money away would be unable to give more.

Paul Graham has an essay about this error, how people thinks that there's a fixed amount of money. Once you understand that wealth is created and how, you can't talk like that with a straight face.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#176

Post by baursak »

jdietrich wrote: post #142
fergie wrote: post #11

"Work is badly distributed. People have too much, or too little, or both in the same month. And away from our unpredictable, all-consuming workplaces, vital human activities are increasingly neglected. Workers lack the time or energy to raise children attentively, or to look after elderly relations. “The crisis of work is also a crisis of home,” ... This neglect will only get worse as the population grows and ages."…

There's only one problem with that - it's not true. The author cites no sources for his claim and every source I've found contradicts him. The average number of hours actually worked has slightly declined in the US and significantly declined in Europe over the past few decades. In the broader historical arc, there has been a huge increase in leisure; the average working week throughout the 19th century was well in ex…

From one of the links: "For example, in the CES a person working two part-time jobs of 20 hours a week is counted as having two 20-hour jobs, but in the CPS, the same individual is counted as one worker working 40 hours."

So both surveys include part time jobs, not sure how that contradicts the original point.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#177

Post by linkmotif »

lbotos wrote: post #108
swalsh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These conversations I feel always seem shallow to me. Automation is definitely helping to free us from a lot of work.. but the world we live in today feels like a preview of what an automated world feels like. In reality, our material lifestyle is still supported by a very large number of people working away in countries most Americans can't find on a map for extremely low wages. If we're going to talk about "reorgan…

I've been calling amazon prime a "hiding of the poor" to my friends and family. Hide the laborers in a far off insanely demanding warehouse, you just get the goods. (I don't have prime, I don't use prime, and I don't want this to be our future.)

> In reality, our material lifestyle is still supported by a very large number of people working away in countries most Americans can't find on a map for extremely low wages.

> I've been calling amazon prime a "hiding of the poor" to my friends and family. (I don't have prime, I don't use prime, and I don't want this to be our future.)

Amen, parent and grand-parent posters.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#178

Post by baursak »

Helmet wrote: post #111
JulianMorrison wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, everyone likes work. We call it "hobbies" when its not formally productive and "vocations" when it is. Capitalism, as a system, is awful at allocating this work that people love to the people who love it. They either can't at all, or they are forced to fit it around wasted time, or they have to gamble on trying to build it up from nothing, and often losing their stake and their beloved work.

If everyone did what they wanted to do all of the time, the world would simply cease to function.

Or, with enough automation, the world would be making leaps of progress in a variety of areas of human interest, because everybody is pursuing their true interests.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#179

Post by Grimm665 »

lbotos wrote: post #108
swalsh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These conversations I feel always seem shallow to me. Automation is definitely helping to free us from a lot of work.. but the world we live in today feels like a preview of what an automated world feels like. In reality, our material lifestyle is still supported by a very large number of people working away in countries most Americans can't find on a map for extremely low wages. If we're going to talk about "reorgan…

I've been calling amazon prime a "hiding of the poor" to my friends and family. Hide the laborers in a far off insanely demanding warehouse, you just get the goods. (I don't have prime, I don't use prime, and I don't want this to be our future.)

> Hide the laborers in a far off insanely demanding warehouse, you just get the goods.

Anecdotal, but I have visited a few of the Amazon warehouses in the Seattle area. I was surprised by the amount of effort Amazon went to to emphasize safety, work-life balance, healthy activities, and good work habits. There were free vending machines for PPE everywhere, and during the lunch hour each day, managers led workers in 20 minutes of organized exercise to keep people active and moving.

This is just one cluster of US-based warehouses, and probably doesn't account for the working conditions in all Amazon warehouses, but it was far from a sweatshop and workers seemed genuinely content with their jobs.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#180

Post by PaperclipPun »

TuringTest wrote: post #81

In a world without jobs, there would still be projects. It's a fallacy the idea that people will not create things if they're not compelled by the risk of starving to death. The problem preventing a jobless society is the reverse: what happens to you if your personal projects are not valued by society enough to pay you for them, and therefore you can't sustain yourself from them? Someone without the skills to create…

I don't necessarily see it as a fallacy. Not because people are compelled by risk of starving to death but because why would they create when an AI or a machine can do it better? What would be the point? I tend to agree with Orwell:

"No human being ever wants to do anything in a more cumbrous way than is necessary. Hence the absurdity of that picture of Utopians saving their souls with fretwork. In a world where every-thing could be done by machinery, everything would be done by machinery. Deliberately to revert to primitive methods to use archaic took, to put silly little difficulties in your own way, would be a piece of dilettantism, of pretty-pretty arty and craftiness. It would be like solemnly sitting down to eat your dinner with stone implements."[0]

If a society is jobless thanks to automation, I see this as the inevitable fate.

And as for a society that values my happiness; I don't see being happy as a worthwhile goal for an individual to aim for. To be happy and content for a long period of time is, in my eyes, akin to being dead in the water.

[0]: In "The Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell (I think it's chapter 12?)

Post reply on HN