131–140 of 145 posts
In 1900s, with Nietzsche, we killed God but at least people had distractions of "work". But in 2000s, we are slowly killing work itself and replacing it with automaton. Without a world with religion or necessary work, I wonder, what is there for (majority of) humans to "cling to"? Without distractions, won't their "freedom" drive them insane? Without God and profession, what would give meaning to their life?
"And that's even after America disposes of thousands of tons of crop and dairy just to keep market prices high." is this true ? is it legal..
Somewhere out there there's a social model that makes a lot more sense and just works, but we can't fathom it right now because we are so busy worrying about competing over pieces on the ground.
pieces on the ground? Care to give an example of this?
In 1900s, with Nietzsche, we killed God but at least people had distractions of "work". But in 2000s, we are slowly killing work itself and replacing it with automaton. Without a world with religion or necessary work, I wonder, what is there for (majority of) humans to "cling to"? Without distractions, won't their "freedom" drive them insane? Without God and profession, what would give meaning to their life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you eat a computer? Will it treat your hernia? No. You need a job that gives you money for those things, and not everyone can hack it as a programmer.
I am using computers as an example of how productivity gains benefit everyone. I was replying to the claim that productivity gains only enrich the investors, which is patently false. I was not talking about jobs at all. My point is that the whole planet (as a whole) is getting richer, whether you realize it or not.
Unless I have steadier access to food, shelter, healthcare, and a safe society, I don't think it should count as a productivity gain or increase in standard of living.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "This is when I realised that the old myth of "as old jobs disappear new ones will take their place" wasn't true. The company had no intention of generating new work" The jobs are very unlikely to be created at the point of elimination. The theory is that the jobs will be created somewhere else. And remember, somewhere else is now global.
Also, no one says the job will be at a comparable skill-level. The jobs that are often created are much more technologically sophisticated so that those who lose them have no where to go while those well off merely get more employment options. My genuine concern is that the jobs that can provide people with just a decent lifestyle are beyond the mental talents of many people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy fix (logically, that is. Politically, nothing is easy). Have a US style "earned income tax credit" or "civilian conservation corps" where for folks get paid to work, and the government creates (productive, civil engineering and janitorial type) work if there is not enough private sector work,
Yes, I know it's a political problem not a logical one :( . There's plenty of work available, on the second link above, Alberto Iglesias, the president of the Farmer's federation acknowledged that (losing the wage if you get employed) makes it very difficult to get labor to harvest fruit and vegetables. "Crews have been decimated at an alarming rate"" There's also a labor shortage for construction work, at wages abov…
He fails to note that wealth decays. It cannot be redistributed indefinitely. Those who create wealth must have enough incentive to keep doing so to support (voluntary or not) those who don't. Take away too much wealth from those who created it and they'll stop creating more, and what wealth there is will be consumed and/or squandered out of existence. Note that, in the USA at least, federal government revenue never…
Yeah, I like this part: "The communist answer to this question was just to distribute everything evenly. But that sapped motivation and never quite worked as advertised." Wow. Understatement? Volumes of economic thought have been written about why communism doesn't work and he just kinda brushes it off like, "minor bug, nbd".
Obviously he never grew a significant fraction of his own food, or built his own house. That I can do so by the proxy of writing software (to wit thinking real hard) does not devalue them to the point that those who don't/won't create food & shelter, or do something exchangeable therefor, can demand I provide them with such necessities. Advocates of this "jobs are optional" meme don't grasp, or won't admit, how little most people are willing to live on if they can get it for zero effort and can be entertained indefinitely ... funny, that sounds a lot like the "bread and circuses" stage of a civilization on the brink of collapse.
Make them "rights"? Obvious discussions of "you have no right to compel me to provide for you" aside... I've figured $10/day is a workable, albeit stark, minimum "living income" (see http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com for the mindset). Few indeed are incapable of earning $10/day and making that livable, save only for lack of will. There is no need to declare a "right to food & shelter" (manifested thru confiscation) when so little effort is needed.
But, as you note, he just tosses out the "human rights" premise as "nbd". Never mind the 100,000,000 dead from prior attempts at the memes he proposes as new.
When he grows half his own food, and builds his own home, and gives 90% of his income to the state (just write a check to the treasury, nobody's stopping him), then maybe he'll have standing. Methinks he won't hold those views if he lived them a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era is a non-fiction book by American economist Jeremy Rifkin, published in 1995 by Putnam Publishing Group.[1] In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and servic…
It's not so impossible to believe. The objection I often hear (and I recall that this is PG's stance as well) is that as old jobs disappear new ones will take their place. For example, as the article mentioned, the former toll booth operator could now repair the automated toll booth system. So far this general idea has been true. Before computers existed as we know them, "computers" were people who did lengthy comput…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so impossible to believe. The objection I often hear (and I recall that this is PG's stance as well) is that as old jobs disappear new ones will take their place. For example, as the article mentioned, the former toll booth operator could now repair the automated toll booth system. So far this general idea has been true. Before computers existed as we know them, "computers" were people who did lengthy comput…
I agree. In the Star Trek economy (afaik), the inwention of the replicator was key to the end of money and the end of a scarcity based economy. Well, we already have a replicator for much of the economy $ cp And it looks as though soon we'll have some very advanced robots that will be able to automate most mundane jobs. So maybe this is good and we can all become Platos, relaxing, philosophizing, self-actualizing at…
This is Hacker News at Y-Combinator. The whole idea is there's nothing stopping you. Open a browser & text editor and write your own paycheck.
Advocate compulsory redistribution, however, and you build those barriers yourself.