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

What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

loc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 659 posts

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#581

Post by dahart »

jlawson wrote: post #561
krupan wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Will this prediction ever come true, or is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent?" Seems abundantly clear to me that there indeed is something in our nature that keeps us grinding. I do hope that we at least continue to increase the freedom to choose what and when we grind

It's not in our nature, it's in the rewards we desire. We desire the best mate possible. No industrial or computer advance has (yet) provided any of us with better mates. Mates are as scarce as they were hundreds and thousands of years ago. Mates choose each other according to relative status. By definition, there is no way we can increase everyone's relative status. So the reason people grind as hard as they used to…

I guess the immediate question I’d have in response to that hypothesis is: if seeking a mate is what’s leading people to grind, why doesn’t that behavior taper off after marriage?

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#582

Post by dahart »

handsaway wrote: post #461
dahart wrote: post #372

> They will have rebelled against long hours; the chances are that in 2022 few people will work more than seven hours a day, if as much Bertrand Russell also famously predicted this. I believe I’ve read that in the 1800’s people were predicting industrialization would do away with labor. People are still predicting this today, with the advent of Machine Learning that’s good enough to automate things like driving. Wil…

I'd argue that it's not human nature but rather our socio-economic system that keeps us grinding away. It's become obvious that for the most part automation does a disservice to workers rather than liberating them since they don't have the legal ownership of the automating forces. A typical factory or whatever if it is able to automate 20% of the current work being done will simply lay off 20% of its workforce rather…

This seems plausible that it has something to do with our economy and maybe capitalism specifically, and I’m kinda familiar with Marx, but I wonder if there isn’t more to it. The reason I say this is because I think I’ve worked the hardest in my life when I started a business. I’m not 100% certain, because I’ve put in a lot of long hours on my various jobs. But, it felt like it was much easier to work long hours on my startup than it did for BigCo or even for someone else’s startup. The desire to make my startup successful, and the fact that I was the owner and was responsible for anything bad that happened, that all made me work even harder, I think. Poking around on HN, it sure seems like lots of other startup founders do the same and might be working harder than the average worker bee.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#583

Post by Manuel_D »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #539
Manuel_D wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're missing the bigger picture: the rich who issues mortgages (or more likely, has stake in a real estate company) is having their wealth transferred to the lender. Most wealthy people loan more than they owe. If you owe more than to loan out then by definitely you're not wealthy, your net worth is negative. Similarly, a poor person who owes $20,000 on an auto loan, whose car is now worth $25,000 just saw a si…

You're right that the banking system is a little more complicated than I made it out to be, but let's ignore that for now. You agree that the majority of the fortune 50 is holds more debt than credit, right? We don't have to speculate about how much debt rich people have, you can look at what % of equities is owned by the upper class and you can go compare consumer debt to corporate debt. Now as to the banking system…

> You agree that the majority of the fortune 50 is holds more debt than credit, right?

No. Not at all. Apple, #3 on the list for example, has hundreds of billions its loaning out because it has nothing better to do with its excess cash [1]. Almost every company on that list has positive total equity, some on them on the orders of hundreds of billions of dollars.

> We don't have to speculate about how much debt rich people have, you can look at what % of equities is owned by the upper class and you can go compare consumer debt to corporate debt.

I'm really baffled at what you mean by this? Yes, the rich own most equity. But how do you interpret this has having more debt? Equity isn't debt, it's ownership in a company.

> Now as to the banking system, there's a little bit of a feedback loop here because they're really the ones creating money, so no they're not really a net creditor either. I owe my bank 700k on my house, but that's new money being created in some respects.

Sort of? Banks don't get to regulate currency supply, the Fed does. It's true that banks leverage more than they have in their reserve, but that doesn't necessarily increase the money supply.

And my point is if you owe 700k on your house and inflation doubles (all prices go up 2x, but so do all wages) then this is very good for you. You effectively got a house for half the price. If you are a multi-millionaire real estate mogul who's writing mortage loans, then this not good for you. That money invested in the home loan isn't even going to keep up with inflation.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#584

Post by dahart »

tmnvix wrote: post #579
dahart wrote: post #372

> They will have rebelled against long hours; the chances are that in 2022 few people will work more than seven hours a day, if as much Bertrand Russell also famously predicted this. I believe I’ve read that in the 1800’s people were predicting industrialization would do away with labor. People are still predicting this today, with the advent of Machine Learning that’s good enough to automate things like driving. Wil…

> is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent? I once read a commenter here on HN claim that any increase in productivity is inevitably 'eaten up' by an increase in debt/credit and that this is why we don't see a corresponding decrease in time spent working. I think that is very insightful.

I’ve got to think about that one, it definitely seems worthy of consideration, thanks for adding. I have noticed in my life that my expenditure does grow to meet my income, and earning more money (getting a new job or a big raise or a bonus) never feels like that much more because it’s so easy to use up the extra. My life seems to expand and contract to match whatever money I’ve got. In that sense, the comment you read feels true.

On the other hand, it’s typically employers that generally control hours and pay, and employers that both seek and use most of the profits from productivity; employees often only get the scraps. If employers are the major force for asking people to work hard, and offering jobs and pay, how does that fit into the idea of debt eating the productivity gains? Are we talking about corporate debt here?

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#585

Post by bcrosby95 »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #473
thegrimmest wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned in a previous comment, I'm saying "Imagine a government without broad power over general welfare". This was the US government until 1936 with United States v. Butler. I don't think it would be a catastrophe to reverse this decision again. It seems that in spite of best efforts, the US has failed to preserve the very meaning of liberty, as it was initially envisioned, from total deterioration even in its…

The material distinction when the United States was founded wasn’t whether the state in general had broad power over the general welfare, but whether the federal government would. State government did have such power.

Yep. The bill of rights didn't even broadly apply to the states until the 20th century. Have fun with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#586

Post by tmnvix »

dahart wrote: post #584
tmnvix wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent? I once read a commenter here on HN claim that any increase in productivity is inevitably 'eaten up' by an increase in debt/credit and that this is why we don't see a corresponding decrease in time spent working. I think that is very insightful.

I’ve got to think about that one, it definitely seems worthy of consideration, thanks for adding. I have noticed in my life that my expenditure does grow to meet my income, and earning more money (getting a new job or a big raise or a bonus) never feels like that much more because it’s so easy to use up the extra. My life seems to expand and contract to match whatever money I’ve got. In that sense, the comment you re…

I think a reasonably simple example would be the relationship between private debt and the property market.

Increased productivity -> increased income -> increased discretionary income -> increased ability to service debt -> larger mortgages -> higher property prices -> less discretionary income (which could otherwise have been used to 'buy' free time).

It's true that some of this borrowing will lead to new wealth in the form of new houses and associated infrastructure, but I suspect that a large amount - if not most - of the borrowed money is spent on driving up the prices of existing assets, in which case the winners are the lenders who have successfully captured the increase in productivity.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#587

Post by kbrisso »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #308
VirusNewbie wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer into the upper class without most people realizing it. Wealth, be it institutions or individuals, will always push for central banking as it entrenches their power.

> inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer to the upper class without people realizing it. Going to need some evidence to back up that statement. Without centralized banking you essentially have no set policy one way other the other. I can understand why one would take issue with the current governance structure, but I don’t agree that letting money randomly fluctuate with no mechanisms for intervention to be…

In a nutshell if I have enough assets that generate lets say for example 6% return and can borrow cheaply like at 1% then I can't lose. Money makes money unlike the poor who borrow at 19%. Inflation benefits the wealthy because their assets go up in value and then that "perceived wealth" gives them access to more cheap money as collateral.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#588

Post by lettergram »

Spooky23 wrote: post #166
lettergram wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better Let me translate “you are slaves and you rent everything. We base your ability to purchase on a social credit score. But we let you rent houses in our artificially limited VR world.” I don’t make much of predictions like these. It’s ALWAYS a safe bet to assume people will lose liberty. To the point the FED was created in 1913, research w…

It’s probably a waste of time to argue this, but the arguments for central banking were the same as the arguments put forth by Alexander Hamilton. More stability, greater resilience, etc. The arguments against it were vague references to tyranny, orchestrated by people whose wealth is generated from resource extraction and inherited wealth.

I recommend reading on history of the bank of the United States. The FED was the 2nd iteration.

Also, Hamilton (who wanted a monarchy) had a lot of very authoritarian ideas and his ideas (and him generally) we’re not well liked by people supporting democracy or the formation of the republic.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#589

Post by auntienomen »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #538
Spooky23 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All things are not equal. I know someone who was the CEO of a small hospital network. When he retired, his compensation was greater than the sum of salary for the entire company. The company paid for his Tesla lease, but orderlies making $12/hr had a uniform deposit deducted from their first few checks.

I would need a source to believe this. The hospital would have had to not have any doctors on staff to come close.

That can happen. Doctors are employed by physician practices which work as contractors at the hospital.
Post reply on HN