Live data from Hacker News

Full Employment

locusmag.com

161–170 of 192 posts

Re: Full Employment

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2.3m per degree C. That's about 7ft per degree. And we're looking at a 5C (aka 35ft) rise. And that's without the "leverage" of flat land: you might have to go a mile in land to find the first place that's an inch about the beach. Ever been on a flat beach when the tide came in? You can lose a lot of land to a very small rise in sea...

Thanks. Either way, it seems much simpler to do something similar to what Holland has done than to move millions of people (hundreds of millions if we're talking about the entire world) inland.

Broadly I agree, but I think that is location specific: can you imagine doing that over the whole east coast? Is the beach\seabed stable enough? What about rivers going out, can we cope with them? Will anyone want to live in Miami if there's no beach? Will we need Mexico\Canada to do their sections to match?

I think smaller local mixed solutions are more likely given the scale and the US approach to government...

Re: Full Employment

#162
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're trapped in a system that doesn't provide workable means to solve our pressing problems Generalization: most of those problems are political rather than technical, and unlike with technical problems, if you make a wrong guess about how to solve a political problem, the costs might be unboundedly catastrophic (e.g. world war). I personally believe that the best response to global warming is open borders, becaus…

My issue with open borders is that everyone seems to come to the most populated places. It seems kind of insane how everyone crams into the same old cities. Companies do it because the workers are there, workers do it because the companies are there, and every city just becomes a crowded, unaffordable hellscape. Is it not possible to build new towns and expand them anymore? There's plenty of land as far as I can tell…

If those cities are so bad, why does almost everyone want to live there?

If you don't like the cities, why not take advantage of open borders leave?

Open borders seems to be the solution to your problem, not the cause.

Re: Full Employment

#163

> Should that day come to pass, the money-issuer – the central bank – can procure all that idle labor, without creating inflation. If the private sector doesn’t want labor, then there’s no bidding war between companies and a federal jobs program or a universal basic income, so creating money to buy people’s labor won’t drive up the price of that labor. I had to stop reading after this. This is not how inflation works…

Those people are already being provided necessities in richer countries paid from state issued debt, surely that causes inflation too according to your train of thought?

Re: Full Employment

#164
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're trapped in a system that doesn't provide workable means to solve our pressing problems Generalization: most of those problems are political rather than technical, and unlike with technical problems, if you make a wrong guess about how to solve a political problem, the costs might be unboundedly catastrophic (e.g. world war). I personally believe that the best response to global warming is open borders, becaus…

My issue with open borders is that everyone seems to come to the most populated places. It seems kind of insane how everyone crams into the same old cities. Companies do it because the workers are there, workers do it because the companies are there, and every city just becomes a crowded, unaffordable hellscape. Is it not possible to build new towns and expand them anymore? There's plenty of land as far as I can tell…

I think that some of the issue is that cities have more opportunities even outside of employment. Arts, dining, sporting events, museums, world class instructors in various hobbies, cultural events, etc.

Re: Full Employment

#165
I'm sorry but this article is garbage.

> That is, I believe that even if we were – by some impossible-to-imagine means – to produce a general AI tomorrow, we would still have 200-300 years of full employment for every human who wanted a job ahead of us.

The guy think that automation is far ahead. And people are needed for the economy to function.

> That money is mostly chasing the same goods that were available before the crisis (rent, groceries, and debt service) so it’s not crowding out other buyers and causing inflation

Which is the same as saying that all people quarantined are doing BS jobs. Since they can be without that work but the economy is functioning and supporting all of them. Which means, if I'm reading it correctly, that we are already past the automation stage.

Here is one job that we could do without: The OP job. He is writing BS articles that probably could be written by the next few iterations of GPT-X.

The irony.

Re: Full Employment

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a fan of open borders, but you can't have any kind of public assistance and open borders.

Bryan Caplan addresses this as one of his "keyhole solutions" to various perceived negative externalities: [0] > For instance, if the problem lies with migrant welfare use, the most keyhole solution-like approach is to change the rules, or enforcement of rules, surrounding migrant welfare use. Another option is open borders with a migration tax [1]. At the end of the day, I think that once someone adopts the mindset…

Most countries have "migration tax" - wealthy investors can buy visas. That's obviously not "open borders" the way most people understand that expression.

> For instance, if the problem lies with migrant welfare use, the most keyhole solution-like approach is to change the rules, or enforcement of rules, surrounding migrant welfare use.

This is just bad. The quality of my life is directly related to the amount of support people around me get. I'm expecting a reduction in social support for the poorest would directly lead to increase in crime. In addition, people generally want things like emergency services being available to everyone, otherwise they'd have to see people dying on the street. I'd rather avoid both of those, and avoid open borders, than have open borders, rampant poverty, crime and people dying on the street. "But without open borders, that problem just translates elsewhere - there are poor people dying of crime on the streets of Africa right now!" Yeah, but then let's solve that problem instead. It's much cheaper for me & my taxes to give someone in a low-PPP country social support, basic job, housing and medical insurance.

Re: Full Employment

#168
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're trapped in a system that doesn't provide workable means to solve our pressing problems Generalization: most of those problems are political rather than technical, and unlike with technical problems, if you make a wrong guess about how to solve a political problem, the costs might be unboundedly catastrophic (e.g. world war). I personally believe that the best response to global warming is open borders, becaus…

My issue with open borders is that everyone seems to come to the most populated places. It seems kind of insane how everyone crams into the same old cities. Companies do it because the workers are there, workers do it because the companies are there, and every city just becomes a crowded, unaffordable hellscape. Is it not possible to build new towns and expand them anymore? There's plenty of land as far as I can tell…

There is simply an advantage to being close to a network node with multiple connections that outweigh the costs. Whether you define that node in people in your field, different fields, different cultures, different ideas, availability of direct flights, trains, highways, whatever connection it may be. There is an advantage to maximizing available connections that can't be ignored.

And ultimately, it may even work out in your favor to live in a high COL place. The rents are higher, but usually your pay is relative so proportionally cost of living is about the same. That means in a high cost of living state, x% of your income is more money to invest and grow, and over a career that can lead to a significant difference in wealth.

Re: Full Employment

#169
post #83

Reading the economic and tech-fix discussion here, it strikes me again that we're trapped in a system that doesn't provide workable means to solve our pressing problems. Yet we continue to treat it (economics, the global financial system) as some kind of inevitable force of nature, rather than as something that we invented and (to some degree) chose. I wish I knew why that is. I don't know how we get from here to a p…

What makes you so sure that economics is entirely constructed? Things like supply and demand are clearly natural consequences of resource scarcity, and doesn't only apply to economics. While we do have certain frameworks that are man-made that prop up and support the economy, AN economy of some description just seems like a natural consequence of things being perceived as having value. We even see this in animals.

I agree with your points overall but I also think there are situations where scarcity is artificial like diamonds or anything that requires money to get to market including government programs like healthcare. For private enterprise, funding is critical. But if the barrier to success of a public or government program is lack of budget then recent events indicate the issue is political, not economics. There will always be debate over which public programs should actually be funded but I think we can generally agree on topics like education, healthcare, and a basic safety net like food and housing.

With recent cash injections by the US Fed and government totaling over $5 trillion, loans or not, we've demonstrated that the dollar is not scarce. Even in the face of inflation worries these injections will probably continue to offset losses and try to make the current administration not look as bad for mishandling the pandemic and following economic crisis. The inflation worry seems mitigated by international use of the dollar with maybe 10x more people interfacing with the currency in some way week to week versus just the US population. People working as Economists vs me with just a degree say things like "...the sharp drop in demand and prices for certain services and energy implies a significantly lower trajectory for both core and headline inflation." I'm not saying it won't catch up to the Dollar eventually, just that the short term worries seem appear offset by the massive pool of international users and curbed by the projected loss of GDP across that pool. I will not that this is not the same during economic booms, in fact that's exactly the right time to pull cash out of the system via higher taxes as it is being generated by the economy and productivity, not the Fed.

Before those injections, I've always thought that if we can provide the better part of a trillion dollars per year to Defense and now can pass on trillions to businesses (deserving or not), we can afford Universal healthcare, proper mental health services, an overhaul of public servants to counter corruption, favoritism, and police brutality. We can afford to feed and house those who cannot afford it themselves AND those impacted by the current economic crisis from those who lost their jobs to those working an 'essential' position but making less than a living wage. Perhaps if businesses were freed of the costs of healthcare administration and related benefits they can be obligated to turn that into investment in their business and employees vs pocketing the savings.

As an non-US example, the UK suddenly has the funding to feed millions of underprivileged kids through the summer. It's 120M sure but is a prime example of a politically explosive (the funding, not the cause) but totally feasible program if we recognize the money exists or can exist at little downside compared to the outcome ie feeding children. In terms of global hunger that does still seem to be a distribution issue, not a scarcity issue.

Investments in our youth are one of the best long term ways to fight inequality and more. We should be aggressively fighting to keep them fed, well educated, and motivated be that in the US, UK, or Senegal.

Again, I generally agree with your comment. Economics is all about resource scarcity and solutioning around those limitations. But I think some scarcity is absolutely self imposed be it for political reasons or simple human greed. Leveraging your access to a scarce resource is an incredibly viable business model in capitalism just like DeBeers. But, we can step back from the drive to more profit and recognize we have an ethical obligation to (channeling leave no trace here) not only leave things as good as we found it but do our best to make the world better and propel the next generation into even more opportunity. That's why people came to the US, opportunity, and we owe it to our ancestors and the spirit of America to continue that legacy.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk on ethical capitalism.

Fed balance sheet and inflation: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/the-feds-balance-sheet-just-...

Also but not from a major outlet: https://www.coindesk.com/fed-officials-see-anemic-inflation-...

And from a well reviewed blog: https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2020/4/26/inflati...

UK meals program: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/16/football/marcus-rashford-...

Investment in youth: https://www.brookings.edu/research/investing-in-the-next-gen...

And from another .edu: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/07/opportunity-i...

World hunger as a distribution issue (2013): https://www.cnbc.com/id/100893540

And here from a related non profit (find the 'Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone?' section): https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-a...

Re: Full Employment

#170
post #28

It's always refreshing to read someone who really gets that economy is not about money, but rather about what is being produced. The title reminded me of the famous Kalecki essay, Political Aspects of Full Employment, which actually explains deeper why this is not so easy to do as Cory Doctorow imagines (if you hadn't read it, I really recommend it, it's one of the best works on economics ever). Here I think is the c…

There is something about working with your hands that can't be understated. If you haven't done a hard working job, you wouldn't know. The only thing stopping me is the salary. If I could make as much money as a knowledge worker cutting greens at golf courses, I'd go back to being a groundskeeper in a heartbeat. That job is pure zen, hard work, but bliss. Most important is that you are able to leave it behind and removed from your life and headspace entirely the minute you step off the property, unlike our email driven petty political rat race.
Post reply on HN