9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft. • Hacker News Board

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#201

Post by killerdark » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 3:25 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #177

kalid wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how driving the marginal cost of human necessities (food, shelter, clothing, health care, education) to zero is anything but a good thing. Is the world worse off because we have innumerable, self-replicating automated "robots" (plants) which, for free, convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen? Should we prefer a universe where humans must do this themselves? Now what if…

I think what you are missing is the in between phase where scarcity still exists, but the best way to produce scarce outputs does not involve humans, besides those who own or run the scarce-output-production entities. This seems to me to either produce societies with wild inequities between a very few producers and a very many do-nothings, or the types of socialist utopias that we appear to be really horrible at as h…

Kurt Vonnegut, Player Piano

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#202

Post by usaar333 » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 3:43 AM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #187

usaar333 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what is the large source of the disparity? I was aware you don't get as nice of a tax break (though that will become irrelevant when you are making no money). Individually, I'd be surprised if your family had to pay over $1,500 a month for everyone, which is pretty comparable to group rates.

It's not that uncommon for the employer to pay part of the group rate, as far as I can see.

Oh quite true, but then you can view it is salary. e.g. you aren't quitting a $80,000 a year job to do a startup; you are quitting a $100,000 a year job to do so.

(I find it hard to accept that a lack of free health insurance is keeping that many would-be entrepreneurs at their day jobs any more than a lack of free housing is. If you have some form of disease that keeps you from getting insurance, I completely sympathize (and I believe the health care law will solve that issue), but for most people it is just another cost to consider before leaving - like housing, transportation, etc.)

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#203

Post by lotharbot » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 3:44 AM UTC

sixtofour wrote: post #60

chriserin wrote: post #36

This is an argument that the unemployment problem is structural rather than cyclical. Paul Krugman points out constantly that if the unemployment problem was structural, we'd see wages rising in areas where there is demand, but wages aren't rising for anybody that makes less than 400,000, though for those above they've increased 23% since 2008. The structural unemployment argument is a trope to insist that the govern…

If there are many job openings, but little actual hiring, then there is no real demand. If there were real demand, businesses would actually be filling those supposedly open jobs and figuring out how to make use of who they hired. Cherry picking with open job ads does not in itself show demand. If wages are rising for people who make more than 400K, it's because demand for people who fill those jobs is real. That may…

> If there are many job openings, but little actual hiring, then there is no real demand.

Or there is demand but inadequate supply. I've heard several people on HN talk about their companies having openings, getting 10 times the resumes that they did in 2007, but seeing significantly fewer qualified applicants overall.

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#204

Post by muhfuhkuh » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 4:35 AM UTC

usaar333 wrote: post #202

bzbarsky wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that uncommon for the employer to pay part of the group rate, as far as I can see.

Oh quite true, but then you can view it is salary. e.g. you aren't quitting a $80,000 a year job to do a startup; you are quitting a $100,000 a year job to do so. (I find it hard to accept that a lack of free health insurance is keeping that many would-be entrepreneurs at their day jobs any more than a lack of free housing is. If you have some form of disease that keeps you from getting insurance, I completely sympat…

Housing and transportation can't bankrupt you (unless it is some crazy circumstance that is so rare that most people can't possibly fathom). You can walk away at anytime from your home or have your car repossessed. You simply cannot walk away from your chemotherapy unless you want to die.

If we can somehow find a way to rein in costs of health services (perhaps by disincentivizing supplier-induced demand through price ceilings in both malpractice awards AND gasp healthcare service price controls a la Singapore, Japan, or Switzerland), we can get further away from our dependence on large corporations to employ everyone.

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#205

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 4:51 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #200

yummyfajitas wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people either don't intend on being profitable in the next 18 months or else they didn't do their research. If you quit your job, COBRA allows you to continue to pay 101% of the group rates for 18 months and keep your old insurance.

Not everyone can afford the short term hit of paying 3-4X what they're paying now for their health insurance. If your monthly group policy is $1200/month for your family, but the employer's paying $800 of that, and you're only paying $400, you'll get quite a shock when the COBRA bill comes.

No one has to pay 3-4X what they're paying now for their health insurance. They have to pay 101%.

It's possible that they didn't understand the nature of their compensation, and mistakenly believed their compensation was lower than it was. But in that case, I'd suggest they simply failed at financial planning.

(Note: if you can't do proper financial planning, don't do a startup.)

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#206

Post by jarrett » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 4:59 AM UTC

kalid wrote: post #92

jarrett wrote: post #52

The question of whether automation causes unemployment to rise in the long run is addressed in detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_automation_to_u... TL;DNR for the Wikipedia article: People have worried about machines putting humans out of work for centuries. But the unemployment rate has not risen steadily over the same period even as technology has constantly grown. The long term trend (measu…

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how driving the marginal cost of human necessities (food, shelter, clothing, health care, education) to zero is anything but a good thing. Is the world worse off because we have innumerable, self-replicating automated "robots" (plants) which, for free, convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen? Should we prefer a universe where humans must do this themselves? Now what if…

I think you're operating from the assumption that the fruits of automation will somehow find their way to the population at large. That won't necessarily happen.

It's quite possible that the advantage will go entirely to those who own and manage the businesses that automate their operations. (And indeed, some would say this is happening now.)

If automation reaches its endpoint, where no human labor is necessary, how does capitalism continue to function? What value can members of the public offer in exchange for all the automatically-produced goods and services?

I think if that were to happen, we'd see some kind of major social reorganization. Who knows how that would look? Maybe it would be utopian, and then again maybe it would be some kind of luddite, burn-the-robots-and-hang-the-engineers facism. Who knows.

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#207

Post by nikils » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 5:11 AM UTC

jfoutz wrote: post #26

PaulHoule wrote: post #10

Technological unemployment is part of the picture, but there isn't a 'magic bullet' to avoid it. We need Scientists? Ask the 1800 surplus Physics PhD's that get produced every year. It's clear that the academic system uses young and smart people, but not that it produces desirable or permanent employment for them. A wise person wouldn't get involved, unless they've got one (or preferably two) parent(s) that are alrea…

Scientists are just like Machine learning pixie dust. It's fun to say, but you'd be hard pressed to find a small business that needs an astrophysicist. I don't mean to pick on astrophysicists by the way, pick any random phd, a small business probably doesn't need that.

Intel (a small business in 1968) was started by two physics phd guys. Adobe (a small business in early 1980s) was started by two phd guys. Google (a small business in 1998) was started by phd-dropouts. I think there are many companies started by phds.

If a small company is trying to solve sufficiently complex problem, like what Intel (in 1968), Adobe(in 1980s) and Google(in 1998) were trying to solve they need a phd. If a small company is building a new social network or social app it might not need a phd.

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#208

Post by michaelperalta » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 5:17 AM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #51

michaelperalta wrote: post #28

Is this the new natural unemployment rate? No. Is the unemployment rate ever going to return back to 5-6%, highly unlikely. Yes, similar things were said after every revolution like the industrial revolution or the invention of agriculture but what you have to realize is that once we got over those job issues they didn't simply vanish. With more and more efficiency from these revolutions comes more and more difficult…

> I think the only way the economy improves is if older unskilled workers eventually leave the job market and make way for younger more technologically savvy employees. I'm not sure I follow you here. In general, older employees are more skilled, even in technological areas. It's true that younger people skew towards tech, but you'll find few 20 year-old googlers with the skills of an average 40 year-old googler. As…

Yeah older employees do tend to be more skilled thats why I specifically said older employees who were not skilled leave the workforce, obviously people who don't exist under this umbrella are highly skilled computer programmers that work at Google, of course in their situation it is better to be older.

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#209

Post by Alex3917 » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 5:43 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #177

kalid wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how driving the marginal cost of human necessities (food, shelter, clothing, health care, education) to zero is anything but a good thing. Is the world worse off because we have innumerable, self-replicating automated "robots" (plants) which, for free, convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen? Should we prefer a universe where humans must do this themselves? Now what if…

I think what you are missing is the in between phase where scarcity still exists, but the best way to produce scarce outputs does not involve humans, besides those who own or run the scarce-output-production entities. This seems to me to either produce societies with wild inequities between a very few producers and a very many do-nothings, or the types of socialist utopias that we appear to be really horrible at as h…

"This seems to me to either produce societies with wild inequities between a very few producers and a very many do-nothings"

I would imagine that as the costs of production approach zero, our real life economy will start looking a lot more like the Second Life economy. That is, where everyone is a boutique producer slash experience seeker.

Re: 9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

#210

Post by mannicken » Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 5:53 AM UTC

jarrett wrote: post #206

kalid wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how driving the marginal cost of human necessities (food, shelter, clothing, health care, education) to zero is anything but a good thing. Is the world worse off because we have innumerable, self-replicating automated "robots" (plants) which, for free, convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen? Should we prefer a universe where humans must do this themselves? Now what if…

I think you're operating from the assumption that the fruits of automation will somehow find their way to the population at large. That won't necessarily happen. It's quite possible that the advantage will go entirely to those who own and manage the businesses that automate their operations. (And indeed, some would say this is happening now.) If automation reaches its endpoint, where no human labor is necessary, how…

At first, yes. Computers were a privilege of rich and intellectual elite, at first. But as you can see, technology gets cheaper and cheaper and more accessible to the general public. Even those who do not have any money at all are able to access it through libraries and stuff.