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

Are you paid to look busy?

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#201

Post by grinnbearit »

chasing wrote: post #184
Artistry121 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've actually created a situation where only those who provide value to others get to choose society's direction - and only in non-coercive ways. Thought leaders, religious leaders and other individuals can all have power as well - although non-violent power. In a heavy tax-scenario those who get to choose society's direction can do so with military level force and attain power through politics and favor trading un…

> You've actually created a situation where only those who provide value to others get to choose society's direction... "Providing value to others" does not necessarily equal "Earning enough money to be able to give away significant amounts voluntarily." Plenty of people are wildly underpaid given their contribution to society.

As yummyfajitas says, marginal utility not overall value.

The first superman in Metropolis can charge a huge amount for his services, the second, perhaps half that. Every subsequent superman will add less utility to Metropolis and be paid less.

Every Superman is paid an amount equivalent to his marginal utility to Metropolis.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#202

Post by pradocchia »

chadcf wrote: post #105
paulhauggis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of…

> Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? Why do people start million dollar businesses now when they can work at McDonald's or work at a call center or or teach schools or be a policeman or or or... It's almost like some people are naturally motivated to do certain thing…

And with nobody having to worry about surviving without a job, it also frees up many people to explore ideas they otherwise would never have had time for.

Well, even universal healthcare would have this same effect in America. There would be a veritable Cambrian explosion as hundreds of thousands of people quit their jobs and started doing something interesting, something they cared about. A lot of these interests would turn into businesses and we would all be far the richer for it, never mind the 50% taxes.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#203

Post by increment_i »

paulhauggis wrote: post #55
ryandrake wrote: post #22

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery becau…

This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of…

You had better be damn good at hunting then, because as a human you'll croak quicker than you think from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#204

Post by nb4hnp »

zo1 wrote: post #190
klunger wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget: 10. Wal-Mart and Friends: Paying your employees an extremely low wage with unpredictable shifts (so they can't get a second job). The end result being that your employees need food stamps to survive, so your profits are ultimately subsidized by tax payers.

Everyone loves the low-prices of WalMart, but they then turn around and bitterly complain about the low-wages that WalMart pays their employees. Even if these employees could get a second job, what makes you think they will be able to find one? Unemployment is sky-rocketing in the US.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Lowest in 5 years is not what I would call "sky-rocketing".

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#206

Post by waps »

chasing wrote: post #184
Artistry121 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've actually created a situation where only those who provide value to others get to choose society's direction - and only in non-coercive ways. Thought leaders, religious leaders and other individuals can all have power as well - although non-violent power. In a heavy tax-scenario those who get to choose society's direction can do so with military level force and attain power through politics and favor trading un…

> You've actually created a situation where only those who provide value to others get to choose society's direction... "Providing value to others" does not necessarily equal "Earning enough money to be able to give away significant amounts voluntarily." Plenty of people are wildly underpaid given their contribution to society.

Plus this was effectively the situation for several centuries. So we know perfectly well what happens. It is decidedly different from equality for all.

But it goes back to the basic motivation for everything. People are motivated by one of two things : political goals (promoting something, can be themselves, but that just makes it a small goal, not non-political), or economic goals.

The problem is that today, the economy, if left 100% to it's own devices would probably kill somewhere north of 50% of the human population for being an economic net-negative.

The problem with political motivations ... we all know that one.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#207

Post by waps »

dang wrote: post #59
ryandrake wrote: post #22

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery becau…

That is awesome and from http://books.google.com/books?id=cccDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA3... Also from Bucky: The Things to do are: the things that need doing, that you see need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be done. Then you will conceive your own way of doing that which needs to be done — that no one else has told you to do or how to do it. This will bring out the real you that often gets buried…

1) the majority of the population would just sit at home, either in front of the TV or on drugs. For one of two reasons : disappointment in their own abilities or because they just don't aspire to anything else.

I think you'll agree this is undesirable, so how would you prevent it ?

2) Look at a few rich kids in college/university who are doing this now. There's two problems :

a) what they find important is worthless (e.g. nobody will ever design, say, an xbox, or a tesla in a society like this. But we'll know a hell of a lot more about theoretical matrix multiplication. No implementations whatsoever, of course)

b) the few that do have worthwhile pursuits don't get any more funding than the worthless ones (e.g. kiva systems got started as a university project, but they couldn't even build a single robot. In a society like the one you're describing that would have been it. Yet from this perspective they made inventory management less human-intensive, which from this perspective would be really good)

3) what about the jobs that need doing, but nobody wants to do. Garbage collection is the poster-child here, but it's not alone. Mining. Sailing cargo ships across oceans. Crew members on ships. Oil drilling. Calling library patrons threatening them into returning books.

How and why would these jobs get done ?

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#208

Post by Terr_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #151
Terr_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inversely proportional to your odds is success, though. For many people the stakes are a bit too high: people who are already affluent with safety nets can tolerate more risk.

> Inversely proportional to your odds is success, though. I seriously doubt that is true. > For many people the stakes are a bit too high: Starting a business with little capital has little downside risk, especially if you are already unemployed. BTW, I started my business with nothing more than an ordinary computer. A friend of mine started his own businesses tuning up peoples' cars in their driveways so they didn't…

> Starting a business with little capital has little downside risk, especially if you are already unemployed.

You're confusing (A) labor-focused self-employment with (B) get-rich-eventually entrepreneurship.

Not everyone has significant savings, family nearby who they can crash with if they got evicted, or the confidence that grandma won't have to start skipping her medication to keep the power on, etc.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#209

Post by forfengeligfaen »

waps wrote: post #207
dang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is awesome and from http://books.google.com/books?id=cccDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA3... Also from Bucky: The Things to do are: the things that need doing, that you see need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be done. Then you will conceive your own way of doing that which needs to be done — that no one else has told you to do or how to do it. This will bring out the real you that often gets buried…

1) the majority of the population would just sit at home, either in front of the TV or on drugs. For one of two reasons : disappointment in their own abilities or because they just don't aspire to anything else. I think you'll agree this is undesirable, so how would you prevent it ? 2) Look at a few rich kids in college/university who are doing this now. There's two problems : a) what they find important is worthless…

1/ I think you're right, many people will sit at home, but this is their choice and I'm personally OK with it.

2/ Don't agree many inventions are serendipitous http://www.geniusstuff.com/blog/list/10-accidental-invention...

3/ If robots can't do these jobs, wages will rise until somebody is incentivised to do them

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#210

Post by ramblerman »

chasing wrote: post #73
paulhauggis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of…

You appear to be getting downvoted, but you've struck at the heart of the issue: If we want to do away with meaningless jobs, people will still need resources to survive. And that "one-in-ten-thousand" (or whatever) will need to be taxed very heavily so the wealth can be spread. We can't have all of our financial resources siloed into an increasingly small number of people's wallets. A great benefit to this system wi…

"And all of this runs anathema to the usual sort of libertarian financial-might-makes-right of the tech world, unfortunately."

Is that the right usage of that word? It means to vehemently dislike or a papal curse. I think something along the lines of, 'but this is anathema to the libertarian ...' would be correct.

Post reply on HN