Live data from Hacker News

A nation of slaves

antipope.org

21–30 of 258 posts

Re: A nation of slaves

#21

Here's a thought experiment. Mr. Myne has invented an extraordinary machine. This one machine can, using polluted air and brackish water as material inputs, produce a nutritious food substitute and potable water for one person for one entire day with less than $1.30 of grid power. The 2000 kcal daily diet uses about 8000 kcal of electricity and 10 L of dirty water. With this machine, a person can avoid starvation and…

This is why patents ought to be property in the same sense that land or leases are property, and the govt. ought to be able to use eminent domain on them. Pay Mr. Myne a lot for his contribution to society, but then make sure that even the least-well-off can take advantage of this newfound material wealth without exploitation.

Re: A nation of slaves

#22

An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

It would be interesting to see if having some level of universal basic income and universal healthcare would be far better than having many federal, state and local departments dealing with distribution of a wide array of various government services.

Re: A nation of slaves

#23
post #16

> Why should we not divert some of our growth into growing our leisure time, rather than growing our physical wealth? Because not everyone was created equal. Some professions are completely worthless (e.g. ad creators) and add nothing net to the society. Others, e.g. doctors, are so valuable, and so few people can do them, that they simply can't afford to work less (educating more doctors so that they can work fewer…

We're on a road to that. I've read about robot surgeons. Very few mistakes, perfectly clean.

Problem is what do we do with spare doctors? Research?

Re: A nation of slaves

#24
The author points out that it's possible in some sense to have a world with less work, OK material standards, more leisure and less unhappiness. People would still work, social/technological advancement would still occur, but people would be more content and maybe many would move to jobs that would make more of their talents.

This, however, is looking only at big numbers on a macro level. It ignores all the things which have prevented this outcome from actually happening. These include (1) incentives (2) ideology.

1. If employer A allows less than 40 hour work weeks, or more vacation, he can be beaten out in the market by employer B which mandates longer hours and produces more per time period. Employees might prefer A over B, but they have so little bargaining power that this will not stop B. If the same requirements are imposed on all employers, then the country will be out-competed by others.

2. Conservatives criticize any such proposal with an argument like this: "You should be free to use your property as you wish, including by having people work as long as you can get them to agree to. And everything is already owned, so the only way to provide more for one person is to take away from another, and it's wrong to take money or other values from people who have earned them, to give to others who have not earned them."

Regardless of the merits of the argument, it is effective with the public, and politicians use it effectively to protect the owners. This can never change unless someone can present a contrary view that can be stated in equally pithy sound-bites and which is equally convincing for large numbers of voters (in democratic countries, basically W. Europe and parts of S. America) or unless a large enough segment commit to a revolution (in the rest of the countries which are not democratic).

Re: A nation of slaves

#25
post #16

> Why should we not divert some of our growth into growing our leisure time, rather than growing our physical wealth? Because not everyone was created equal. Some professions are completely worthless (e.g. ad creators) and add nothing net to the society. Others, e.g. doctors, are so valuable, and so few people can do them, that they simply can't afford to work less (educating more doctors so that they can work fewer…

The number of teaching spots for doctors is not necessarily well exposed to the market (various regulations). It's unlikely that all the interested and capable people are able to become doctors.

It's also possible to imagine a social contract that gives working people more, I'm not sure we have to stick with the one you see.

Re: A nation of slaves

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income would be just a step up to the ultimate goal of Star Trek style economy. I guess that having basic income would help cut on those 'bullshit jobs' that don't actually benefit anyone and are just a net negative for the society.

What are these bullshit jobs? If cutting them has no effect then there is a profit to be had.

I see you've never worked in a large organization... ;-)

Bullshit jobs are largely jobs that managers create and defend in order to expand their managerial fiefdoms. A manager's influence in an organization comes partially from how many people report to him or her. That's the incentive structure that creates many of the bullshit jobs.

There are also interpersonal issues in play. For instance, you or I might walk into a particular company and observe a dozen different processes that could be easily automated with off-the-shelf software but are currently being done by humans. We might say to the manager "Why don't you automate, you're wasting money?!". In some cases, the manager would reply that the people doing those jobs are valued employees, possibly even friends, and automating those processes would put them out of work and thus, the processes are not automated.

It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient.

Re: A nation of slaves

#27

This is a stressful topic that gets overwhelming quickly. Things are shifting but it's a slow shift and one that is going to be extremely painful before it gets better. Some interesting work going on with worker coops, parecon, post-scarcity economics, etc... As one of the linked comments noted "Looks like we've built higher-phase communism accidentally. Ooops." The Keynes article he briefly touches on is fantastic h…

While having a beer last week with some friends, the topic turned to the old question "What would you do if you suddenly had $20 million dollars handed to you?". This is an old question of course, on HN it would be called F U money, but it had been asked that day by a customer of my friend Kevin. Kevin makes jewelry tools. His immediate response was "I could buy more tools and machines!", which was my basic response also. I have a nice new CNC lathe on my list next, a mere $100,000.

I think it is funny, that given enough money not to work our (Kevin, me) first reaction is to think of the things we could buy that would let us do more work. For the most part I enjoy my work, and I would get more enjoyment with fancy new equipment. "who can look forward to the age of leisure and of abundance without a dread" does not seem true in this case.

YMMV of course. Given FU money, I would probably not work 40 hours a week, every week. It would be more like 10 hours one week and 80 another. When I am in the passion of a new idea, the time flies by and 80 hours feels like nothing. Anyone who has worked all night on a project and then seen the sun rise knows what I mean. I find those times some of the most enjoyable in my life.

I think humans like to do things. Make games, write software, build sandcastles, etc. Removing the need for work would not remove the work. The work would just be what we found to be entertaining to ourselves, instead of a job to eat.

Re: A nation of slaves

#28

One of the biggest views I see in my parents and grandparents: work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure. This is really hard to respond to, especially with people who have spent 50 years working with this mindset, because they feel "invalidated" or "worthless" if their life's worth isn't measured by their work output. I don't think that's necessarily a…

work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure

Regardless of age, I guess most people feel this way (not just the previous generations - even the people in their 20's and 30's today). What is the alternative to this? If not work - what is important? what makes one person a success and another a failure, and what gives purpose and dignity to life, in your opinion?

Re: A nation of slaves

#29

This is a stressful topic that gets overwhelming quickly. Things are shifting but it's a slow shift and one that is going to be extremely painful before it gets better. Some interesting work going on with worker coops, parecon, post-scarcity economics, etc... As one of the linked comments noted "Looks like we've built higher-phase communism accidentally. Ooops." The Keynes article he briefly touches on is fantastic h…

While having a beer last week with some friends, the topic turned to the old question "What would you do if you suddenly had $20 million dollars handed to you?". This is an old question of course, on HN it would be called F U money, but it had been asked that day by a customer of my friend Kevin. Kevin makes jewelry tools. His immediate response was "I could buy more tools and machines!", which was my basic response…

> I think humans like to do things. Make games, write software, build sandcastles, etc. Removing the need for work would not remove the work. The work would just be what we found to be entertaining to ourselves, instead of a job to eat.

Isn't that a reason in and of itself to remove work? People working for satisfaction and pleasure instead of trying to make it day to day seems like a massive improvement on many societal ills we face.

Re: A nation of slaves

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income would be just a step up to the ultimate goal of Star Trek style economy. I guess that having basic income would help cut on those 'bullshit jobs' that don't actually benefit anyone and are just a net negative for the society.

What are these bullshit jobs? If cutting them has no effect then there is a profit to be had.

It's worse than that -- I've heard stories from friends in government agencies of people who do net-negative work (i.e. they create work for others) and keep their jobs for political/societal/social reasons.
Post reply on HN