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

The Rent Hypothesis

esoltas.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 150 posts

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#11

Post by harperlee »

ccvannorman wrote: post #6

This is a very important topic as robotics and automation begin their exponential curve of running our lives. Who will own the robots? Will the majority of humanity be enslaved to rent-seekers who own patents on a robot hinge?

As long as there are jobs, rent will not be the only source of income (typically they are stated: jobs, technology, capital).

Technology is a given for a specific time. And I read your argument as: given enough technology, all will be capital. So I believe you assume no jobs will remain, given sufficient technology.

On that regard, I feel that this "end of jobs" dystopy is not more achievable than the Fukuyama's "end of history" theory. As long as humans exist, they will have two things: a calling for doing something with their lives (and derive meaning from it) and a need to compete with others. So they will keep on working on new jobs, and money will flow, transfering value among them. Agriculture was once the be all and end all of economy, and now is just one industry. If automation makes some jobs disappear, or be easier, others will appear.

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#12

Post by venomsnake »

rayiner wrote: post #7
ccvannorman wrote: post #6

This is a very important topic as robotics and automation begin their exponential curve of running our lives. Who will own the robots? Will the majority of humanity be enslaved to rent-seekers who own patents on a robot hinge?

> Will the majority of humanity be enslaved to rent-seekers who own patents on a robot hinge? If current trends continue, it will be the capitalist who first commercialized the robot once public and private R&D had done all the heavy lifting.

So lets break the trends ...

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#13

Post by pinky1417 »

Wow, impressive article especially considering it comes from (I think) a junior at Princeton https://www.linkedin.com/pub/evan-soltas/29/5/b44

My only gripe is that he thinks that entrepreneurship and investment are struggling. If they're struggling now, then they've been struggling through all of human history.

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#14

Post by jerf »

ccvannorman wrote: post #6

This is a very important topic as robotics and automation begin their exponential curve of running our lives. Who will own the robots? Will the majority of humanity be enslaved to rent-seekers who own patents on a robot hinge?

"Will the majority of humanity be enslaved to rent-seekers who own patents on a robot hinge?"

Actually, that's easy: No. Humanity will not be enslaved to a small number of capital owners.

But the reason isn't necessarily a happy one, which is that humanity will revolt and start destroying and probably kill lots of people and even potentially kill the goose laying the golden egg by destroying the robotic infrastructure. Should they fail to destroy it, then you still face questions as to who ends up with the power and how it is distributed after the fact; you can find places in history where there was a lot of blood and violence on a recurring basis to answer the question "who gets the power?" because the matter wasn't settled even after the first victory.

That's the outcome I'm more worried about, not the possibility of somehow getting 99% of the population "enslaved".

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#15

Post by crdoconnor »

ccvannorman wrote: post #6

This is a very important topic as robotics and automation begin their exponential curve of running our lives. Who will own the robots? Will the majority of humanity be enslaved to rent-seekers who own patents on a robot hinge?

The idea that robots are on the cusp of subsuming all human labor is itself a tool of rentiers:

https://pandodaily.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/imag0016.jpg?...

(advert by California's restaurant association in protest against minimum wage hikes that will likely deplete their profit margins)

Of course, the idea doesn't necessarily have to be true in order to serve its purpose.

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#16

Post by Shivetya »

pinky1417 wrote: post #13

Wow, impressive article especially considering it comes from (I think) a junior at Princeton https://www.linkedin.com/pub/evan-soltas/29/5/b44 My only gripe is that he thinks that entrepreneurship and investment are struggling. If they're struggling now, then they've been struggling through all of human history.

what I think needs to be taken away from this is that to fix areas were we think there is little competition which causes the conditions he sees is that we need to remove regulation which acts as a barrier to entry.

far too many business are protected by heavy regulatory burdens to the point that to enter into such the costs of compliance eat up any slack which reduces your ability to react.

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#18

Post by c22 »

ngoel36 wrote: post #2

Unrelated to the content - do people find that the bolding of linked words/phrases makes the article easier or harder to read?

Yes. I didn't realize they were links till I got to the ones labeled "here". If those hadn't been on the page I would have likely finished reading and left completely oblivious to the links.

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#19

Post by genericuser »

Shivetya wrote: post #16
pinky1417 wrote: post #13

Wow, impressive article especially considering it comes from (I think) a junior at Princeton https://www.linkedin.com/pub/evan-soltas/29/5/b44 My only gripe is that he thinks that entrepreneurship and investment are struggling. If they're struggling now, then they've been struggling through all of human history.

what I think needs to be taken away from this is that to fix areas were we think there is little competition which causes the conditions he sees is that we need to remove regulation which acts as a barrier to entry. far too many business are protected by heavy regulatory burdens to the point that to enter into such the costs of compliance eat up any slack which reduces your ability to react.

I agree those barriers should be removed in the majority of cases, as in the majority they seem to be purely protection for already existing businesses.

However it is important to note that some of the areas with the least competition, most regulations, and highest compliance costs exist in such a state due at least in large part to honest safety concern. Aerospace and Medical are the two broad areas that have many facets that immediately come to my mind as falling into this category.

Just saying it is important to remember our goal is safely bettering the world, not simply being able to stand atop a burning pile of rubble and yell Anarchy. Although I believe that sounds like a lot of fun too.

Re: The Rent Hypothesis

#20

Post by crdoconnor »

harperlee wrote: post #11
ccvannorman wrote: post #6

This is a very important topic as robotics and automation begin their exponential curve of running our lives. Who will own the robots? Will the majority of humanity be enslaved to rent-seekers who own patents on a robot hinge?

As long as there are jobs, rent will not be the only source of income (typically they are stated: jobs, technology, capital). Technology is a given for a specific time. And I read your argument as: given enough technology, all will be capital. So I believe you assume no jobs will remain, given sufficient technology. On that regard, I feel that this "end of jobs" dystopy is not more achievable than the Fukuyama's "end…

Fukuyama's "end of history" theory is, in many respects, apologetics for rentier capitalism.
Post reply on HN