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

Let’s Be Less Productive

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#31

Post by vog »

dbingham wrote: post #18
ef4 wrote: post #13

This kind of alarmism is both very old and economically ignorant. We have already experienced this scenario multiple times, and it always leaves us better off. Consider that 200 years ago almost everyone was in farming, and now it employs less than 2%, thanks to drastically higher productivity. We didn't all end up unemployed. We invented whole new things to work on. Most of us are doing things our ancestors would ha…

Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests. The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the exa…

> less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals

As far as I know, this is mostly about avoiding monocultures, about chemicals and about genetic manipulation. And maybe animal welfare. It never occured to me that this is about machines. Am I missing something?

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#32

Post by yummyfajitas »

jeffool wrote: post #2

The thought of eschewing productivity makes me cringe instantly. But that said, I worry he's not wrong about some things. Our economies don't seem to be growing fast enough to negate the downsides of things like automation. Rather than slow down productivity, which surely few other nations would do, wouldn't it serve us better in the long run to do a better job of splitting up the work between capable hands? In that…

The ideals of a crazy person like me would be "hike up the minimum wage insanely high, pry money from the pockets of the wealthy"...

Ignoring the normative reasons why one might oppose this, how would it even work practically?

At the level of most of us, wealth is a claim on consumption. So redistribution of wealth among the middle class does enable redistribution of consumption

At the level of rich people, it isn't - wealth represents the ability to direct productive enterprise (e.g., the ability to tell Facebook to do more photo sharing or invade privacy more). Suppose you were to tax Zuckerberg or Ellison and then redistribute, and now every American owns a couple of shares of Facebook and Oracle. How will this enable you to increase the consumption of the lower classes?

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#33

Post by eru »

narag wrote: post #25
dbingham wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests. The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the exa…

It doesn't seem fair to put all the blame on automatization. I've read here that high fructose corn syrup is suspect of contributing to obesity and some other diseases. But is automatization responsible or USA regulations and subsides? In general, I'd say that the main factor is that the change of having cheap and abundant food is not followed by a change in diet. It takes some pain and a couple generations (in the b…

The saddest part of the high fructose corn syrup story is that that syrup is actually only cheaper than sugar in the US, because of subsidies and tariffs.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#34

Post by eru »

dbingham wrote: post #20
jeffool wrote: post #2

The thought of eschewing productivity makes me cringe instantly. But that said, I worry he's not wrong about some things. Our economies don't seem to be growing fast enough to negate the downsides of things like automation. Rather than slow down productivity, which surely few other nations would do, wouldn't it serve us better in the long run to do a better job of splitting up the work between capable hands? In that…

On the whole 21 hour work week thing, I think one way to deal with the compensation issue would be to enforce maximum gaps. By which I mean, write a law that says the top compensated individual in any company can only be compensated so many times the bottom. So if an executive wants to be paid more, after a certain point he has to raise everyone else's salary too. This would also help deal with the issue of executive…

> By which I mean, write a law that says the top compensated individual in any company can only be compensated so many times the bottom.

That wouldn't work that well. Companies would just split along payment levels, then. I.e. either outsource the peons, or take the CEO on loan from McKinsey.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#35

Post by eru »

dbingham wrote: post #19
ef4 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting a key point. If productivity doubles, living on half your current salary would be no problem, because all that productivity will be driving down the cost of most things.

It rarely actually works like that anymore. Companies have gotten very good at controlling their supply to ensure they can maintain high enough margins that their executives can take home ridiculous paychecks.

Any sources? Margins for most industry are quite public. And while corporate profits are at high levels historically, they aren't that high.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#36

Post by lincolnq »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #30
ef4 wrote: post #13

This kind of alarmism is both very old and economically ignorant. We have already experienced this scenario multiple times, and it always leaves us better off. Consider that 200 years ago almost everyone was in farming, and now it employs less than 2%, thanks to drastically higher productivity. We didn't all end up unemployed. We invented whole new things to work on. Most of us are doing things our ancestors would ha…

This line of reasoning is fallacious. See the following graph: http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/human_vs_machine_prog... So far, we've invented whole new things to work on. There is no compelling reason to believe that will continue to happen. Incidentally, that scenario hasn't always left biological entities better off. When technology reduced the wages for travel below the level of horse subsistence, the resu…

I get the argument, although the blog you linked to seems broken right now (the graph doesn't show the data that he claims it to show).

I agree: at some point we'll run out of things to employ humans doing.

The big question for society is, what will happen when we reach that point? The relevant evidence is that humans care much more about the continued existence of other humans, to a much stronger degree than they do (in general) about horses.

I am trying this thought experiment: Imagine a human in a position to decide whether to spend a lot of money on saving their horse. Imagine the same human now facing the same choice for saving their neighbor. The arguments are quite different, and it feels morally wrong to apply the economic argument to humans.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#37

Post by dbingham »

vog wrote: post #31
dbingham wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests. The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the exa…

> less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals As far as I know, this is mostly about avoiding monocultures, about chemicals and about genetic manipulation. And maybe animal welfare. It never occured to me that this is about machines . Am I missing something?

Most of the machines used on a farm have to do with harvesting, planting or spraying chemicals. They require plants to be planted in monocultures in straight clean rows in order to work. If you move away from chemicals and row based monoculture you can't really use most farm equipment anymore.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#38

Post by joshcrews »

narag wrote: post #25
dbingham wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests. The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the exa…

It doesn't seem fair to put all the blame on automatization. I've read here that high fructose corn syrup is suspect of contributing to obesity and some other diseases. But is automatization responsible or USA regulations and subsides? In general, I'd say that the main factor is that the change of having cheap and abundant food is not followed by a change in diet. It takes some pain and a couple generations (in the b…

Automation is not the cause, but an increase in farmers per capita increases resistance to unhealthful or immoral food production practices (crowded, drugged, chemicalled animals; GMO crops, nutrient-depleted vegetables, corn-raised cattle, raw milk bans).

More people getting into farming could really help turn around American food

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#39

Post by yummyfajitas »

lincolnq wrote: post #36
yummyfajitas wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reasoning is fallacious. See the following graph: http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/human_vs_machine_prog... So far, we've invented whole new things to work on. There is no compelling reason to believe that will continue to happen. Incidentally, that scenario hasn't always left biological entities better off. When technology reduced the wages for travel below the level of horse subsistence, the resu…

I get the argument, although the blog you linked to seems broken right now (the graph doesn't show the data that he claims it to show). I agree: at some point we'll run out of things to employ humans doing. The big question for society is, what will happen when we reach that point? The relevant evidence is that humans care much more about the continued existence of other humans, to a much stronger degree than they do…

The graph shows machines already overtook horses and will eventually overtake humans (even if it hasn't happened yet). No data is graphed, it's just a schematic diagram (as is evidenced by the lack of axis labels).

You are correct that humans may feel more charitable towards each other than towards horses. But the point is that mass unemployment is likely to occur and this will be a completely new phenomenon. I.e., we can't look at the past to predict the future.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#40

Post by freshnote »

GFischer wrote: post #29
virmundi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're getting squeezed because you haven't stayed with the market. I've seen companies advertise template sites for as little as $100. The sites are all customizable via a WYSIWGY interface. They are also hosted for a small monthly fee because none of them will be a huge burden on the ISP. As a result, this space is moving to more automated, but non-distinct sites. Are you creating a similar setup? Are…

Indeed. I'm working with a company here in Uruguay that can give you a pretty good website (with CMS, e-commerce and whatever you need) in 3 days, for probably a lot lower wage than the grandparent poster. And they complain (rightfully) that they can't compete with India shops. What's his added value? In an Internet world, all such work where the customer doesn't see his added value (other than "buy american" or some…

I work in person with local businesses, but it's a tough market (and I agree with what everyone has said).

Right now, I'm looking to get away from web-focused work. That's why I'm working on my own stuff, but it all takes time.

Post reply on HN