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

211–220 of 260 posts

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#211

Post by gumby »

gaius wrote: post #95
gumby wrote: post #50

It is interesting that the article’s discussion of the history of work begins with Marx, as the modern conception of work lies in the industrial revolution, of which he was a crucial byproduct. His entire Weltanschauung presumed that organized work was the default activity of humans, and with that as a given, proceeded from there. Modern economics, including neoliberal economics, uses his vocabulary by default, makin…

The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI. What will you spend your UBI on if the goods and services are not being produced, because no one is being paid to do them?

Let’s the robots do them. If I want a person to play me music i can find someone who’ll do it at mynclearinprice, or play the music myself. Or be happy with the robot produced music (which can hardly be worse than the focus group produced pop music of today)

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#212

Post by clarry »

visarga wrote: post #124
adrianN wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such improvements tend to spread from rich to poor. People in developing countries choose those horrible factory jobs because they're still better than subsistence farming. China is lifting huge numbers of people from abject poverty every year. Eventually wages rise.

> Such improvements tend to spread from rich to poor. Best example - the mobile phone. Even the poor can get one that is better than the best smartphone of a few years ago. Access to content has seen a similar trend - we now all have access to massive amounts of information, videos and online conversation. No money needed, so the poor get immediately the same level of access as the rich.

> No money needed, so the poor get immediately the same level of access as the rich.

Except for everywhere where poor connectivity and low data caps (+expensive plans relative to the income) are common.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#213

Post by ComputerGuru »

andrepd wrote: post #168
ComputerGuru wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the first derivative of net wealth is a better metric?

I think the point is that there are things that aren't captured by looking at wealth alone. Having a college degree, being inserted in a society that ensures peace, safety and well-being, all that has value.

> all that has value

Yes, and (ideally) currency in an economy is a liquid representation of value. A college degree translates (after accounting for inefficiencies) to higher income potential, more efficient spending, etc.

EDIT: typo, "liquid representation of value," not "wealth"

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#214

Post by ComputerGuru »

barrkel wrote: post #121
ComputerGuru wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the first derivative of net wealth is a better metric?

First derivative of wealth would be income or spending. I think it's better to go the other way: consider the integral of cash flows over time (i.e. net present value). It would still be pretty uncertain.

Yes and no. I purposely chose the mathematical notation rather than the more common economical terms to convey a different idea.

If you look at the instantaneous\* derivative, it's not the fact that you owe the federal government $2M for that MD that counts but rather your monthly obligation. Debt doesn't matter, required repayment per unit of time does - so almost like cash-basis accounting.

Finding a $100 on the street or borrowing $100 from a friend are the same in terms of their addition to your instantaneous wealth, it's the fact that one needs to be repaid that detracts from your "actual" wealth, and the repayment period matters. Compare the lifestyle of two neighbors working at the same institution making the same amount of money that each took out $500k mortgages to buy their identical houses, only one took it out for 15 years and the other for 30. On day 1, they both take the same hit to their net worth, but that doesn't change their wealth derivative in and of itself, it's the rate of paying it back that you should be counting.

That explains why one college educated individual can get a loan for $1000 from the bank and at time 0 they are, under this metric, better off than someone that needed to hit up a payday loans place for the same loan but at a higher interest rate. They both "earned" the same amount of money, and may even "spend" it on the same thing at the same rate, but when you take the repayment period into account (let's say 1 year vs 2 weeks, respectively) you can see why the graduate student is measurably better off.

Just like stocks you hold aren't actually contributing to your day-to-day wealth (and as such aren't taxed) but it's when you cash out that you've either made or lost money.

\* let's define an "instant" as a month, just to make things easier.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#215

Post by gaius »

gumby wrote: post #211
gaius wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI. What will you spend your UBI on if the goods and services are not being produced, because no one is being paid to do them?

Let’s the robots do them. If I want a person to play me music i can find someone who’ll do it at mynclearinprice, or play the music myself. Or be happy with the robot produced music (which can hardly be worse than the focus group produced pop music of today)

Let’s the robots do them.

Or the unicorns? I mean, as long as we are just handwaving this stuff.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#216

Post by gumby »

gaius wrote: post #215
gumby wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s the robots do them. If I want a person to play me music i can find someone who’ll do it at mynclearinprice, or play the music myself. Or be happy with the robot produced music (which can hardly be worse than the focus group produced pop music of today)

Let’s the robots do them. Or the unicorns? I mean, as long as we are just handwaving this stuff.

My employer is working on robots with semantic understanding. Can’t help you on the unicorn front, sorry. You’ll have to do that on your own.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#217

Post by lazerpants »

narag wrote: post #175
lmm wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Paul Graham's article on income inequality was of terribly poor quality (not sure if that's the one you're referencing).

He fails to even begin to discuss capital, return on capital, and capital ownership as drivers in economic inequality. Basically it feels like a piece written by a smart guy who has no idea what he's talking about but feels emboldened because "economists are all idiots".

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#218

Post by tc7 »

psyc wrote: post #198
hycaria wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I work a full week at one job + 2 nights per week. Feel that I do a lot of unpaid stuff (ie taking care of the household, cooking, ...) but still endlessly hear about how other people "don't have the time". The useful non paid things that people actually do are greatly overestimated imo, because more often than not it will end up in the "don't have time for it" even though they could manage to find time f…

I agree with you. Growing up, I never heard the end of it. How housework was a full-time job. My mother chanted "men's work is from sun to sun, women's work is never done" like a nursery rhyme, or a prayer. When I moved out, I discovered that working 40 hrs was pretty hard, but housework was a joke. Right now I probably spend around 10-12 hrs per week, max, on housework. And the overwhelming majority of that is just…

Curious, do you have kids/family in the house? There may be a difference in the mental/physical load of "managing a household" vs "doing housework".

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#219

Post by hycaria »

tc7 wrote: post #218
psyc wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. Growing up, I never heard the end of it. How housework was a full-time job. My mother chanted "men's work is from sun to sun, women's work is never done" like a nursery rhyme, or a prayer. When I moved out, I discovered that working 40 hrs was pretty hard, but housework was a joke. Right now I probably spend around 10-12 hrs per week, max, on housework. And the overwhelming majority of that is just…

Curious, do you have kids/family in the house? There may be a difference in the mental/physical load of "managing a household" vs "doing housework".

They can participate, way more than what we usually see (my own upbringing was too lax on this in my opinion). I wonder why parents don't make their kids part of the household.

Re: The radical idea of a world without jobs

#220

Post by pygy_ »

pygy_ wrote: post #138

Work is power. The obsolescence of humans in the workforce means that we are gradually being stripped of the power to put a roof over our heads and bread in our plates while capital becomes independent. At this point, feeding non-productive humans still benefit the economy (by preventing riots and allowing the productive individuals to contribute), but if the vast majority of humanity does not participate in the econ…

Seeing the score jump up and down, this seems controversial, I'll expand a bit:

Our economy is a dissipative structure, not unlike fire, nuclear chain reactions and living organisms. It consumes energy (dissipates it, actually, increasing total entropy) in order to perpetuate itself.

Its real currency isn't money, but energy. Money and finance are tools to set its goals and direct its actions.

Fundamentally, supply is energy/matter/recipes to transform either.

Demand stems from survival instinct and reflexes. Humans demand material security, the market provides it in exchange for labor. The economy demands to be kept running through our work and keeps us mostly safe in exchange.

Those instincts/reflexes were acquired by anything alive thanks to evolution.

Currently, companies are subject to heavy selection pressure. They've been morphing at an impressive pace thanks to technological progress, becoming ever more efficient thanks to automation. Only the most efficient stay afloat. At some point, feeding humans will not be the most efficient way to keep themselves up and running, and when that occurs, we will be too dependent to survivie without them.

The primary and secondary sectors are becoming autonomous fast (autonomous tractors, trucks and mining equipment), and so is the industry. The tertiary sector is only useful as long as humans themselves are useful to the first two sectors.

Post reply on HN