More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production • Hacker News Board

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#101

Post by s73ver » Mon, May 08, 2017, 11:37 PM UTC

TimPC wrote: post #62

vkou wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are always 'jobs' for people to do. I, for one, would love to have a dozen servants to do everything for me. I'm just not interested in paying them a living wage. Most of those temp jobs do not pay a living wage. They exist because of the largess of either government subsidies for the working poor, the largess of relatives of the working poor, or because said working poor are burning the furniture to keep warm.…

This is true only when the alternative is a living wage job. A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits. Most companies that pay low wages would potentially not exist if they had to pay $15+ an hour today. At a minimum the price structure of goods would radically alter and the incentives to cut workforce…

I don't completely believe that. Further, if these companies are not offering jobs with living wages, and expecting the safety net to pick up the slack, why are we not taxing the hell out of them? At least to the point where they pay back what they've drained.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#102

Post by s73ver » Mon, May 08, 2017, 11:40 PM UTC

djschnei wrote: post #23

Jabanga wrote: post #12

Industries that lose jobs due to automation cause job growth in more slowly automating industries: http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/10/24/13327014/productivit... This has been the pattern for over 200 years of labour-saving automation: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite...

Unfortunately, this myopia is and will always be perennial. I think in large part it's a misunderstanding of what the goal of an economy should be; many think it's maximum employment - it's not. Maximum employment is a side effect of a healthy economy, not the goal. The goal of an economy should be maximum productivity. When maximum employment is the priority, you tend to get less of everything. It's a subtle differe…

Philosophy discussion aside, what is going to be done for those displaced to automation? The whole "what is the goal of the economy" talk is nice, but at the end of the day, there are millions of people who are going to be unable to feed and house their families because of automation. What is going to be done for them?

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#103

Post by zxcvvcxz » Tue, May 09, 2017, 12:03 AM UTC

ideonexus wrote: post #5

While the scope of the article is confined to manufacturing, which impacts less-specialized labor, I felt a sense of dread reading it for what it means for people losing their jobs to software. Fresh out of college in the late 1990s, one of my first "high tech" jobs was manually building HTML pages for job listings, copying-and-pasting advertisements from word documents all day long. One day, I recommended the compan…

> The bad part is that we live in a society with an antiquated work-ethic, where your value is measured in capital and the number of hours you put in each week at your job. Automation isn't the problem, living is a culture incapable of valuing leisure time is what needs to change.

Why should we value leisure time over work, and by proxy, acquisition of capital?

These are the activities that gave us the great comforts of modern living, from electric light, to heating, to plumbing, electronic entertainment, vaccines from diseases, you name it.

We're not 'done' with hard work, or technological evolution. We never will be, and that's a good thing.

If you want to push for more leisure time than is currently available fine - but most people won't, because they instintively feel bad for not keeping up with others. And perhaps they should. Or at least they should admire and deeply respect those who put in the work to make our world go round. You can't shame away diligence.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#104

Post by ThomPete » Tue, May 09, 2017, 12:18 AM UTC

robotresearcher wrote: post #54

ThomPete wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jobs are mostly temp jobs not full time jobs. Bush changed how jobs are defined obama continued that with the result that 95% of jobs created since the financial cricis are temp jobs. This is a big deal in the us as it cuts of access to ex healthcare. Its very grim whats going on.

It'd be a shame to suppress or resent improved productivity from automation because the local social policy was messed up. A nation made wealthy from technology could choose to organize its healthcare differently.

Yes but that doesen't solve the problem. For single payer healthcare to work people will need to make more money. The more money they make on mundane things the more likely they are to be replaced by automation.

It's a vicious cycle.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#105

Post by mikepurvis » Tue, May 09, 2017, 1:15 AM UTC

s73ver wrote: post #94

mikepurvis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but that's the core of the Basic Income argument.

Which is orthogonal to this discussion. Mainly because I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. So we need to find other solutions.

It's a matter of correctly framing the discussion. Lots of basic income forms already exist in the US, including:

  - Pensions
  - Alaska Permanent Fund
  - Child tax credits
  - Stimulus cheques
  - Social Security
  - Welfare

I just don't think it's a huge stretch to jump from these kinds of payments to an expectation that the government of a wealthy nation would supply all citizens with a stipend.

Maybe the phrase "basic income" is too closely associated with socialism... in that case, call it an automation tax credit or something. Once people start receiving the cheques, they'll realize that it's a pretty good deal— kind of like the ACA.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#106

Post by jganetsk » Tue, May 09, 2017, 2:23 AM UTC

s73ver wrote: post #94

mikepurvis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but that's the core of the Basic Income argument.

Which is orthogonal to this discussion. Mainly because I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. So we need to find other solutions.

> I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US.

The United States House of Representatives passed a Basic Income bill written by Richard Nixon in 1969. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#107

Post by zxcmx » Tue, May 09, 2017, 8:13 AM UTC

djschnei wrote: post #96

thesagan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Econ and politics is rife with semantics, and they're very important, and sometimes central to the conversation. Either way, I think you're the one making the claims that need substantiation. Years of studying econ hasn't provided me clear evidence that upholds the idea that "economies have goals" other than "economies tend to grow in material wealth" – and even that has subtleties too many to thoroughly discuss on a…

Economic systems have goals. They're systems devised by men. They don't just throw spaghetti against the wall and call it an economic system. Socialism was designed to accomplish some set of goals, capitalism was designed to accomplish some set of goals. Not really sure how this is an argument...

We totally do throw spaghetti at the wall and call the results an "economic system".

Neither "capitalism", "communism" nor "socialism" exist except as ill described definitions and abstractions that are misused and abused by academics, politicians and the general public alike.

The actual systems we have are a patchwork of contradictory laws, policies and actions by a ton of different parties.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#108

Post by djschnei » Tue, May 09, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

zxcmx wrote: post #107

djschnei wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic systems have goals. They're systems devised by men. They don't just throw spaghetti against the wall and call it an economic system. Socialism was designed to accomplish some set of goals, capitalism was designed to accomplish some set of goals. Not really sure how this is an argument...

We totally do throw spaghetti at the wall and call the results an "economic system". Neither "capitalism", "communism" nor "socialism" exist except as ill described definitions and abstractions that are misused and abused by academics, politicians and the general public alike. The actual systems we have are a patchwork of contradictory laws, policies and actions by a ton of different parties.

ok, guys. You win. Individuals don't look at public economic policy through ideological lenses and these ideological lenses certainly don't have loosely definable goals. A capitalist and a socialist ideologue, while advocating for public policy, definitely don't have a desired state they are shooting for.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#109

Post by djschnei » Tue, May 09, 2017, 2:21 PM UTC

s73ver wrote: post #102

djschnei wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, this myopia is and will always be perennial. I think in large part it's a misunderstanding of what the goal of an economy should be; many think it's maximum employment - it's not. Maximum employment is a side effect of a healthy economy, not the goal. The goal of an economy should be maximum productivity. When maximum employment is the priority, you tend to get less of everything. It's a subtle differe…

Philosophy discussion aside, what is going to be done for those displaced to automation? The whole "what is the goal of the economy" talk is nice, but at the end of the day, there are millions of people who are going to be unable to feed and house their families because of automation. What is going to be done for them?

Are you asking what can be centrally designed/planned to soften the blow of technological progress for those whose professions become obsolete? To that question, I would say nothing. And this isn't from a philosophical POV; it's from a very pragmatic/logical POV (which admittedly seems cold at first glance).

Pragmatically, these kinds of questions have to be weighed by net-harm vs net-good. By stifling innovation or subsidizing bad ways of doing things you are choosing a (relatively) small amount of good (preserving some obsolete job so that people don't lose those specific jobs) over the much larger net-good that increase economic output provides for the entire system.

If you have an open mind; I would suggest reading the chapter "The Curse of Machinery" from Henry Hazlitt's 1946 work "Economics in One Lesson". It can be read here for free: https://fee.org/articles/the-curse-of-machinery/

Would never suggest this will change your world, but it might help you understand the opposing POV.

Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production

#110

Post by zxcmx » Tue, May 09, 2017, 2:37 PM UTC

djschnei wrote: post #108

zxcmx wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We totally do throw spaghetti at the wall and call the results an "economic system". Neither "capitalism", "communism" nor "socialism" exist except as ill described definitions and abstractions that are misused and abused by academics, politicians and the general public alike. The actual systems we have are a patchwork of contradictory laws, policies and actions by a ton of different parties.

ok, guys. You win. Individuals don't look at public economic policy through ideological lenses and these ideological lenses certainly don't have loosely definable goals. A capitalist and a socialist ideologue, while advocating for public policy, definitely don't have a desired state they are shooting for.

I apologise, I think I ended up talking past you.

When you wrote "economic systems" I read that as a statement about actual economies instead of what you actually wrote.