Software Is Eating the Job Market • Hacker News Board

Re: Software Is Eating the Job Market

#131

Post by s73v3r » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #65

ctdonath wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you'll have increasing encroachment on motivation of the productive. When Ronald Reagan was a top-billed Hollywood actor, he faced a ~90% tax bracket. Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated, he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending time on diminishing returns. Same for plenty of us motivated ones: if 80% are living off the 20%, that will require t…

> Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living. You're assuming what you do can't be automated. I want to automate what you do so you can live "off the grid" if you want. Capitalism only entitles you to profits on your labor capital until it has no value.

The problem is, labor capital is the only thing that everyone has. And most people don't have the other form of capital. So if their labor capital has no value, then they're probably going to starve.

Re: Software Is Eating the Job Market

#132

Post by s73v3r » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 5:55 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #99

oldmanjay wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. There may well be individual capitalists who believe that, and certainly in the heat of speculation some individuals act as if that is their belief, but the system itself has no such requirement.

Economics 101. Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade. I'll wait while you do the math.

Economics 101 doesn't usually reflect conditions in the real world.

Re: Software Is Eating the Job Market

#133

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #123

dllthomas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade or it doesn't happen . That's not to say that both parties gain utility from any trade that could be made (obviously), and there's nothing that implies an infinitude - just a difference in how much people value different things. Of course, past Econ 101, we also get into issues of people making trades they think will be beneficial but aren't.

Alright, we have an economist here. So the bank makes you a loan and they expect you to pay it back with interest. Where is that extra capital supposed to come from?

The extra money ("capital" means something else in econ than finance) comes from trading things valued, by another, more highly than that other values the money.

It comes at a cost, but a person and the bank might both come out ahead in utility if the person has a stronger preference for money in the short term than the long term (see "Time Value of Money", "Hyperbolic Discounting") compared to the bank. There are a number of forms this can take, but one worth calling out is when the person is able to use the money to produce the thing they are going to trade for more value.

Does all of this assume growth? Not really. It assumes someone is creating something somewhere, but it doesn't assume society is creating more tomorrow than today.

That said, even that is not assumed by Economics - because nothing in Economics says banks will always be willing to make loans. If conditions are such that they do not expect to be able to be paid back (often enough to have a positive expected value), Economics says banks stop lending. There is no assumption of infinity.

Re: Software Is Eating the Job Market

#134

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jun 11, 2015, 8:37 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #96

jes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the use of the word "voluntary" in my comment? Absent force, a person is free to either accept or reject a given deal.

A deal implies ownership. Ownership requires force. Try again.

Does a deal actually imply ownership? Where is the ownership in a deal trading service for service?