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

Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#111

Post by cam_l »

liber8 wrote: post #47
alex-g wrote: post #24

I don't care about inequality (of outcome). I care about suffering. Automation may increase inequality between those who are able to take advantage of it, and those who aren't - but it is better to say that increased automation exposes an existing problem. Namely, it so happened that many people were recently able to make a reasonably comfortable living in less-skilled work. There was always a population who couldn't…

This is an excellent point, though I'm not sure you'll be in agreement with why I feel that way. The issue comes down to how you define "suffering". One of the reasons income inequality is such a silly measurement of overall economic well-being is because people often believe it must be correlated with suffering. In other words, those at the poorer end of the spectrum must be suffering relative to those at the rich e…

"Food, clean water, and basic shelter have never been cheaper." Lack of these things are, and always have been, mere symptoms of powerlessness. And though nature played a larger part in this powerlessness in the past, it is largely a social problem. But still, this is only even arguable in the states because so much wealth, and so much power, was captured from the rest of the world during the last half of last century. If your supposed lack of suffering (which I would dispute) of some 300m citizens rests on the suffering of a couple of billion in other places, it doesn't exactly mean a whole hell of a lot.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#112

Post by ig1 »

ronaldx wrote: post #52
ig1 wrote: post #21

There was an article in the economist a couple of weeks ago which argued that because growing inequality was a global phenomenon it was unlikely to be related to tax policies, labour laws, etc. but rather due to global factors such as technology and globalization. On a microlevel the argument seems to make sense the middle-market jobs are the ones that are being wiped out and having salaries driven-down by out-sourci…

OK, but globally inequality isn't growing, by many measures. Hans Rosling illustrated that this week[1]. World income now fits a more continuous curve compared to the rich- and poor- of the past. World equality has presumably been helped by out-sourcing: it's just that some of the 'equality' is no longer owned by the West. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822

I think we're talking cross-purpose; I think you're talking about inequality between countries while I'm talking about within countries.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#113

Post by ronaldx »

ig1 wrote: post #112
ronaldx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but globally inequality isn't growing, by many measures. Hans Rosling illustrated that this week[1]. World income now fits a more continuous curve compared to the rich- and poor- of the past. World equality has presumably been helped by out-sourcing: it's just that some of the 'equality' is no longer owned by the West. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822

I think we're talking cross-purpose; I think you're talking about inequality between countries while I'm talking about within countries.

Yes, except that I wasn't talking at cross-purposes and nor about countries.

I was talking about inequality between individuals globally, because I think it's fundamentally a more important measure - and there is now far less global poverty.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#114

Post by nathan_long »

daughart wrote: post #106
nathan_long wrote: post #42

Why is the sale of labor considered so different than the sale of anything else? You don't feel immoral selling your car to the highest bidder. Why should selling your labor be different? You don't feel immoral buying bananas as cheaply as possible. Why should purchasing labor be different? I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely trying to think through these questions.

Labor is a complex commodity because it is linked to a human being. It's natural and right that the value of labor is influenced by supply and demand. However, value is also determined by the cost of production. What is the cost of production of the laborer? The very fact that labor is intrinsic to the laborer sets it apart from other commodities, and gives it additional social, cultural, and moral dimensions. Labor…

>> In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative.

Inherently, or only when it leads to abuses, like in "The Jungle"? Are worker treatment laws sufficient?

>> value is also determined by the cost of production

In what way? If it costs me $500 to make something, but nobody wants it, its value is still $0 (eg, a crappy sculpture). If it costs me $0 to make something and everybody wants it, its value could be millions.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#115

Post by daughart »

nathan_long wrote: post #114
daughart wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor is a complex commodity because it is linked to a human being. It's natural and right that the value of labor is influenced by supply and demand. However, value is also determined by the cost of production. What is the cost of production of the laborer? The very fact that labor is intrinsic to the laborer sets it apart from other commodities, and gives it additional social, cultural, and moral dimensions. Labor…

>> In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative. Inherently, or only when it leads to abuses, like in "The Jungle"? Are worker treatment laws sufficient? >> value is also determined by the cost of production In what way? If it costs me $500 to make something, but nobody wants it, its value is still $0 (eg, a crappy sculpture). If it costs me $0 to make something and everybody w…

Value is multifaceted, but in this case it should be pretty clear. If the demand for something only exists at a price less than the cost of production, then the product will not appear on the market (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.). If something costs you zero to make, the price of the item will probably fall to zero (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.), regardless of demand. A crappy statue has multiple valuations, one of which is the cost of production (in addition to use value, exchange value, market value, labor value, etc.).

Treating labor as a commodity is by definition dehumanizing. Dehumanization “entails a perception of other people as nonhumans — as statistics, commodities, or interchangeable pieces in a vast ‘numbers game’. Its predominant emotional tone is that of indifference ... together with a sense of noninvolvement in the actual or foreseeable vicissitudes of others” (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl 1971, 105-6). Even in cases of slavery, the slave's labor is not what is actually considered the commodity. Commodification of labor has lead to real declines in the US and abroad in terms of worker quality of life, wage stability, worker freedom, power relations, worker skills, and democratic involvement.

Re: Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?

#116

Post by nathan_long »

jasonlotito wrote: post #108
nathan_long wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not ignoring those people. I'm just assuming they trade net mending, fire, water, etc for fish, rather than taking them by force. Indeed, what's the point of catching lots of fish unless he can trade some for other things? He can't eat them all. "We'll mend your nets for 5 fish" is far different from "you have fish and we want them, so hand them over."

You understand taxes aren't just taking money for nothing, right? It is an exchange.

That depends. Maybe the person being taxed is not a beneficiary of how the money is used.

It's not nearly as clear an exchange as trade, although of course there are things (like roads) that we wouldn't have at all except via taxes.

Post reply on HN