Let’s Be Less Productive • Hacker News Board

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#71

Post by georgemcbay » Mon, May 28, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC

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…

I think you're being a bit naive in assuming that when the massive and sustained unemployment (by today's definition) happens, wealthy people will be in a position to "save" their neighbors by throwing a few bucks their way.

If we don't deal with this situation before it happens (and, IMO, this shift has already started though it'll be decades before it takes full shape) there will be bloody revolution to the point of societal collapse. Having a bank account with a lot of zeros in it won't count for much by then.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#72

Post by capsule_toy » Mon, May 28, 2012, 7:15 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #70

yummyfajitas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not see that there will always be room for songs and movies that say something truly new about the world we live in? No, I can't see this. I think it quite likely that fairly quickly, we will reach the point where existing art is sufficient to satisfy most people. At some point, the quantity of good art will be vastly larger than the amount of consumption any human can do in a lifetime. And even if this is fa…

At some point, the quantity of good art will be vastly larger than the amount of consumption any human can do in a lifetime. Oh, I think we passed that point a while ago. I certainly don't have time for all the art I would like to experience. But: so what ? Just because a given piece of art finds a relatively small audience, that doesn't mean it's not valuable to those people. We have 7 billion people on this planet…

It's a $1 billion dollar market. If our startup captures just 1% of this tiny market, we'll be rich!

Most artists and musicians I know make nearly nothing from their work.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#73

Post by capsule_toy » Mon, May 28, 2012, 7:27 PM UTC

tmoertel wrote: post #66

yummyfajitas wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, why do you believe this?

I believe it because the alternative – that humans cannot find new ways to create value for themselves – is harder to believe. Assume that there is a point in time in which humans run out of ways to create value for themselves. If you were among the displaced masses, wouldn't you like to have work? Oops. We've just created a new way to create value: by helping you find work. Which contradicts our initial hypothesis.…

I don't think that's a contradiction. If there's no more ways to create value, then what work are people going to help others find? If there is no work to be found, then those people aren't creating value, either.

Why is it absurd? What's your opinion about people that have currently been displaced from their jobs/industry (eg the auto industry), or any other long-term unemployed? Are they just lazy people that haven't found any other ways to create value?

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#74

Post by dbingham » Mon, May 28, 2012, 7:33 PM UTC

politician wrote: post #45

dbingham wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging a fine? No. Disallowing the entry of their goods into the US market entirely unless they obey US labor laws? Yes. It'd cause all manner of hell on implementation, because it would completely turn the world economy on its head. Right now we're really dependent on abusing the hell out of cheap labor and countries that don't have a solid regulatory structure. So while we sit here and claim to decent labor and e…

Consider that an obvious response by the targeted country to tariffs on their exports is to erect restrictions on imports from the initiating country - a situation which can easily result in mutual escalation of trade barriers and one which the WTO was formed to prevent. Rather than unilaterally barring goods from entering the US which do not comply with our labor and environmental laws, a better approach could be to…

Ah, but we're not placing a tariff on any particular country nor banning goods from a particular country. Rather we're targeting multi-national corporations. And part of that targeting includes an increased wages requirement. A minimum wage gap. So countries are really going to protest us insisting that companies that want to sell goods in the US pay their citizens more? I would they'd be willing to take the environmental standards if they came linked with a significant increase in pay.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#75

Post by greenyoda » Mon, May 28, 2012, 7:37 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #41

politician wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a fine idea, but realize that just before the law comes into force affected companies will move their operations overseas [1]. Do you support punitive tariffs on foreign imports? [1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2040142,00....

Charging a fine? No. Disallowing the entry of their goods into the US market entirely unless they obey US labor laws? Yes. It'd cause all manner of hell on implementation, because it would completely turn the world economy on its head. Right now we're really dependent on abusing the hell out of cheap labor and countries that don't have a solid regulatory structure. So while we sit here and claim to decent labor and e…

> "We could use our consumer power to force an equalization in the global labor market by making a simple declaration: obey our labor and environmental standards -- and let us confirm that you do -- or you don't get to sell your goods to our market."

Except that the current dynamics of our economy show that this isn't how actual consumers want to use their "consumer power". Rather, U.S. consumers can't seem to get enough of cheap goods from countries with lax labor laws imported by corporations like WalMart that exert market leverage due to their huge purchasing volume. Even manufacturers of high-end goods like iPads outsource their labor to places where labor is cheap, because they understand that very few people would want to spend $1000 on an iPad, even if the extra cost went toward promoting social justice.

So who is the "we" that's going to "force" this? We live in a democracy, and consumers are also voters. These voters may not be thrilled to re-elect politicians who enact laws that increase the prices of consumer goods (or energy, or other commodities that affect the average person's standard of living). And this isn't something abstract that people will think only affects somebody else -- it's something they'll feel every week when they have to spend a much larger percentage of their income on food, clothing and other necessities. (Yes, the price of food will go up under your proposal since it's largely dependent on oil, which comes from many countries that don't have U.S.-style labor and environmental standards.)

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#76

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 28, 2012, 7:38 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #64

yummyfajitas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a finite number of things to do which create value and which humans are willing to pay for (just as is the case with horses). The only difference is that N_human > N_horse. The fact that N_machine < N_human doesn't mean that N_machine will always be less than N_human. I'm only pointing out that it is a fallacy to claim that it is.

There is a finite number of things to do which create value and which humans are willing to pay for Ridiculous. This reminds me of the story of the patent commissioner in the late 1800s who suggested closing the patent office because everything had already been invented that could be. We are on the cusp of an explosion in new ways for people to create value. I don't understand how someone who has been around HN as lo…

[deleted]

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#77

Post by politician » Mon, May 28, 2012, 8:34 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #74

politician wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that an obvious response by the targeted country to tariffs on their exports is to erect restrictions on imports from the initiating country - a situation which can easily result in mutual escalation of trade barriers and one which the WTO was formed to prevent. Rather than unilaterally barring goods from entering the US which do not comply with our labor and environmental laws, a better approach could be to…

Ah, but we're not placing a tariff on any particular country nor banning goods from a particular country. Rather we're targeting multi-national corporations. And part of that targeting includes an increased wages requirement. A minimum wage gap. So countries are really going to protest us insisting that companies that want to sell goods in the US pay their citizens more? I would they'd be willing to take the environm…

When the US outlawed US-based financial institutions from honoring transactions originating from the worldwide online gambling industry, Antigua sued the US at the WTO and won the right to violate ~$21M worth of copyrights (annually, IIRC).

This case illustrates two points, first, targeting companies or industries rather than their host nations is irrelevant from the perspective of the WTO. Second, the WTO has some very powerful tools for forcing member nations into compliance with its rulings.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21i...

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#78

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, May 28, 2012, 8:38 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #70

yummyfajitas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not see that there will always be room for songs and movies that say something truly new about the world we live in? No, I can't see this. I think it quite likely that fairly quickly, we will reach the point where existing art is sufficient to satisfy most people. At some point, the quantity of good art will be vastly larger than the amount of consumption any human can do in a lifetime. And even if this is fa…

At some point, the quantity of good art will be vastly larger than the amount of consumption any human can do in a lifetime. Oh, I think we passed that point a while ago. I certainly don't have time for all the art I would like to experience. But: so what ? Just because a given piece of art finds a relatively small audience, that doesn't mean it's not valuable to those people. We have 7 billion people on this planet…

Machines will never possess original creativity. I can't prove this to you. We'll just have to wait and see. But there certainly aren't any counterexamples to be found yet.

True, but this is again the logical fallacy I was warning against: there was no machine faster than a horse, therefore there never can be.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#79

Post by tmoertel » Mon, May 28, 2012, 8:50 PM UTC

capsule_toy wrote: post #73

tmoertel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it because the alternative – that humans cannot find new ways to create value for themselves – is harder to believe. Assume that there is a point in time in which humans run out of ways to create value for themselves. If you were among the displaced masses, wouldn't you like to have work? Oops. We've just created a new way to create value: by helping you find work. Which contradicts our initial hypothesis.…

I don't think that's a contradiction. If there's no more ways to create value, then what work are people going to help others find? If there is no work to be found, then those people aren't creating value, either. Why is it absurd? What's your opinion about people that have currently been displaced from their jobs/industry (eg the auto industry), or any other long-term unemployed? Are they just lazy people that haven…

Let’s be clear about what we’re discussing here. The author of the original article suggested that efficiency was a problem because it threatened employment. I believe this claim to be false because, as I’ve written in earlier comments, when improved efficiency allows fewer humans to produce the same value as before, the humans who are no longer needed to produce that “old” value are freed to create new value. This will always be so.

To see why, imagine the opposite: that at some point in time there are displaced masses who are cut off from society because they cannot create new value. But don’t those masses need and want? Don’t those masses have the ability to do things for one another? Of course, they do. So, in this imaginary future, what’s preventing them from creating new value within their own cut-off society?

It’s not efficiency.

It’s people. It’s people who have written the game’s rules, perhaps unknowingly, to prevent the displaced masses from creating their own value. It’s the displaced masses, themselves, who demand that society turn back the clocks. And this future is easy to imagine, for this future is already here.

Which brings me to your question about the auto industry and today’s long-term unemployed. Efficiency isn’t what’s keeping these people out of work. It’s people: politicians and union bosses who sing sweet lies, the unemployed themselves who believe the lies, and executives who drain value from companies for personal gain. These are real problems that keep people out of work.

But efficiency isn’t among them. It’s an imaginary problem.

(It does, however, make for a good distraction.)

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#80

Post by malandrew » Mon, May 28, 2012, 9:43 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #64

yummyfajitas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a finite number of things to do which create value and which humans are willing to pay for (just as is the case with horses). The only difference is that N_human > N_horse. The fact that N_machine < N_human doesn't mean that N_machine will always be less than N_human. I'm only pointing out that it is a fallacy to claim that it is.

There is a finite number of things to do which create value and which humans are willing to pay for Ridiculous. This reminds me of the story of the patent commissioner in the late 1800s who suggested closing the patent office because everything had already been invented that could be. We are on the cusp of an explosion in new ways for people to create value. I don't understand how someone who has been around HN as lo…

I almost completely agree with this. I think yummyfajitas' key point rests on the "willing to pay for" part.

The number of things that others do that I am willing to pay for drops as more and more "stuff" become abundant. I generally accept that wants are unlimited but attention is not and free stuff increasingly taxes attention to the point that working to earn additional money to buy more stuff has an attention-denominated opportunity cost.

Good enough is the enemy of better. What happens when people don't feel that the things people are doing to create value are no longer considered valuable to motivate people to keep people from generating that value for monetary reasons? At a macroeconomic scale, either some other extrinsic motivators must appear or we need to be intrinsically motivated in creating ever more value.