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

The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#21

Post by saticmotion »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #4
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

I don't see a way to get there, for most nations. Big nations would have the most trouble introducing this. And what about immigration? Immigration can't be effectively regulated by any means available to a moderately democratic state. Should immigrants receive the BLS? If yes, you go broke. If no, the immigrants are essentially second-class citizens who have to work for an extremely low wage (because they would have…

A solution - though extremely unlikely in this day and age - would be to abandon the notion of nations. Especially in the far future, if we are ever to meet aliens. Imagine having to explain that you only represent one of 196 nations. Seems a bit silly to me.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#22

Post by crisnoble »

m0nty wrote: post #3

This is a serious and interesting subject which requires a better treatment than emotive words like "hand-wringing" and "worriers", and a conclusion with more depth than "in the long run, we're all dead." All the author really says is that experts disagree on the effects of automation (who would have guessed?) and that this might lead to lower pay and fewer jobs (again, hardly news). Meaningless assertions like "the…

>What are we expected to do with our time without paid work?

What would you do if you had infinite free time? I would spend more time exploring my city, read more books, and finally get around to my garden project. In fact, I fantasize about retirement all of the time because I imagine myself doing these things.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#23

Post by istjohn »

Loughla wrote: post #5
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

I legitimately do not believe that this would work in the US before an extreme collapse of the current system - including but not limited to a civil war. I believe this because we have a hard enough time pushing through cursory and very basic social welfare programs. Quite literally guaranteeing someone a basic income with 0 work involved would be as palatable as thumb tacks to many individuals in the states. Logic d…

Such a reform would be difficult since it would require substantial compromise from both sides of the aisle, but some of the conservatives' favorite economists have endorsed the idea. Also certain tax credits and Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend resemble the concept of a guaranteed minimum income on lesser scale.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#24

Post by sillysaurus3 »

istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

Should productivity go down (say we run out of fossil fuels without developing a cheap alternative or all our productivity starts going to dealing with run-away climate change) then you just decrease the guaranteed minimum income.

That decision would have lots of consequences. People usually live slightly beyond their means. Decrease their means, and suddenly the majority of your population is living way beyond their means.

Any guaranteed minimum income can't ever go down for this reason. You could try to drop it, but then you'll wind up paying them the same amount anyway in welfare, because many more people will be seeking welfare to supplant their missing guaranteed income.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#25

Post by crisnoble »

saticmotion wrote: post #21
bayesianhorse wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a way to get there, for most nations. Big nations would have the most trouble introducing this. And what about immigration? Immigration can't be effectively regulated by any means available to a moderately democratic state. Should immigrants receive the BLS? If yes, you go broke. If no, the immigrants are essentially second-class citizens who have to work for an extremely low wage (because they would have…

A solution - though extremely unlikely in this day and age - would be to abandon the notion of nations. Especially in the far future, if we are ever to meet aliens. Imagine having to explain that you only represent one of 196 nations. Seems a bit silly to me.

Would it not be possible to change the standard US/THEM mental model without meeting a new THEM?

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#26

Post by istjohn »

grinnbearit wrote: post #18
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

Why a basic income? I propose basic welfare, food + clothing + shelter, even entertainment. Mass produced in order to minimise costs. Then allocate a fixed amount of tax revenue to fund it, say 10%. Then as productivity goes up and goods become cheaper, this 10% can provide even more. Let money be what it is, a claim on goods and services provided for by other people. With basic welfare no one is forced into work out…

In kind welfare is notoriously inefficient. The bureaucracy required weighs down the system. No one knows what they need better than the people themselves.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#27

Post by taeric »

grinnbearit wrote: post #18
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

Why a basic income? I propose basic welfare, food + clothing + shelter, even entertainment. Mass produced in order to minimise costs. Then allocate a fixed amount of tax revenue to fund it, say 10%. Then as productivity goes up and goods become cheaper, this 10% can provide even more. Let money be what it is, a claim on goods and services provided for by other people. With basic welfare no one is forced into work out…

I would think your proposal is actually harder. Providing money is relatively straight forward. All of the decisions that would go into producing and distributing basic food, clothing, etc would be a bloody nightmare. Especially since it could be avoided by simply offloading it to the "private" sector.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#28

Post by MarcusVorenus »

forca wrote: post #11
Loughla wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I legitimately do not believe that this would work in the US before an extreme collapse of the current system - including but not limited to a civil war. I believe this because we have a hard enough time pushing through cursory and very basic social welfare programs. Quite literally guaranteeing someone a basic income with 0 work involved would be as palatable as thumb tacks to many individuals in the states. Logic d…

Thank you, Tea Party (yes, I'm being sarcastic). The far right in this country have driven home their stupid Ayn Rand message and too many people have listened. We now have the most polarized government since the Civil War. The right believe that their way is the only way. To them everything is a zero sum game. I would settle for a Scandinavian or Swiss-style system. The older I get, the less I like capitalism as des…

Basic income is not a left vs right issue. Lots of libertarians (including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek) support basic income as a more efficient safety net than government-run programs.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#29

Post by stronglikedan »

forca wrote: post #11
Loughla wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I legitimately do not believe that this would work in the US before an extreme collapse of the current system - including but not limited to a civil war. I believe this because we have a hard enough time pushing through cursory and very basic social welfare programs. Quite literally guaranteeing someone a basic income with 0 work involved would be as palatable as thumb tacks to many individuals in the states. Logic d…

Thank you, Tea Party (yes, I'm being sarcastic). The far right in this country have driven home their stupid Ayn Rand message and too many people have listened. We now have the most polarized government since the Civil War. The right believe that their way is the only way. To them everything is a zero sum game. I would settle for a Scandinavian or Swiss-style system. The older I get, the less I like capitalism as des…

> The right believe that their way is the only way.

To be fair, the left feel this way too.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#30

Post by jfoutz »

grinnbearit wrote: post #18
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

Why a basic income? I propose basic welfare, food + clothing + shelter, even entertainment. Mass produced in order to minimise costs. Then allocate a fixed amount of tax revenue to fund it, say 10%. Then as productivity goes up and goods become cheaper, this 10% can provide even more. Let money be what it is, a claim on goods and services provided for by other people. With basic welfare no one is forced into work out…

I'm not completely clear i understand the distinction. With basic income, you just get cash (or a tax deduction if you're making money - the original proposal was around 2x the deduction vs cash). you can do whatever you want with it. like eating steak more than having a large living space? Do that.

I get the impression you're wanting to provide standardized essentials, a room, 5 shirts, 5 pants, government cheese. This invariably leads to weird market issues, people want more of X so they sell off some of Y - for example, using foodstamps to buy steak, then selling it in the parking lot for a big discount. Why bother with that administrative hassle, and innefficiency? the vast majority of people want what they want, and balance their resources as well as they can. The biggest complaint about US welfare is it's so inflexible. "Easy" to get food, but sometimes people need extra cash to fix their car. That's pretty much impossible in the current system.

Post reply on HN