Are jobs obsolete? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#101

Post by blinkingled » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:20 PM UTC

chailatte wrote: post #36

My theory from before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906769 - In 20 years, 80% of the people in will be kept alive by welfare, supplemented by their hourly job. Enough to get a small apartment, utilities, cell phone, cheap but unhealthy food, and shopping at the dollar store. And free tv/movie/music/book/sports entertainment via the internet. - 15% will be the middlemen, extracting value from the others via se…

That actually looks fairly positive - hopefully the 0.1% won't come up with a genius/subtle way of getting rid of "the other, useless" people en masse. As resources get scarce that's the greatest and very real threat.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#102

Post by jpdoctor » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:20 PM UTC

jswinghammer wrote: post #17

I'm not sure the Post Office's problems are related to technology. Their union negotiated a "no layoff" provision in their contract just this year. Why would you agree to that as an employer? Then there is the problem of defined benefit pensions where you end up keeping people basically on staff long after they stop working for you. The Post Office needs to go bankrupt and clear these contracts out and move forward w…

> I'm not sure the Post Office's problems are related to technology.

Well, other than that whole "email" fad.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#103

Post by jbooth » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:21 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #92

jbooth wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every union "no layoff" provision I've ever seen was a case of the union choosing to forego contracted CoL raises and some various health benefits in exchange for keeping jobs. Typically it will be cost-neutral compared to layoffs and keeping benefits. The employer wouldn't sign up to it if it was a pure money loser. They're not crazy :) Also, Obama already suspended Saturday delivery. So not too sure what he has to…

Obama already suspended Saturday delivery. There was apparently a rogue delivery person four days ago, joyriding in the mail truck and asking me to sign for a delivery.

Sorry, my fault. They're going to end it soon, according to Obama's postmaster general and the legislation to do so is being filed by a democratic senator. http://www.businessinsider.com/say-goodbye-to-saturday-mail-...

Point still stands that "fox news said this about obama" does not correlate at all to what he's thinking or even doing. In fact you can usually assume the opposite.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#104

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:21 PM UTC

dreamdu5t wrote: post #83

silverbax88 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mentioning the existence of a power structure of property owners does not automatically include all property owners.

Okay... then what does the power structure of private property have to do with it? Unemployment is not necessitated by private property. Removing the power structure of property owners will not eliminate unemployment or cause people to become educated. This is what Jello implies, and it's naively incorrect. Come on, Jello openly professes these politics/ideas, I am not reading anything into the quote that isn't there…

[deleted]

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#105

Post by jganetsk » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

Policy adjustments for maintaining capitalism in the post-employment era: provide a minimum guaranteed income to all citizens and abolish minimum wage. This was Milton Friedman's idea.

This would create a massive market for a standard "life package": a combination of food, shelter, and healthcare for one person with cost equal to the minimum income. We could even have cities organized around the concept. Then, people can go to work in creation spaces where they get micro-paid exactly what their contribution is worth. Getting $5 for a blog post I write sounds great if I enjoy doing it and am not hungry.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#106

Post by ams6110 » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #79

Supermighty wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicken and egg. If the workers can't pay rent the market will correct rent down. It's that it takes too long to correct and someone's bound to be evicted before that happens.

If the landlord can't afford mortgage, how they gonna lower the rent? Run that scenario forward a couple steps and you see the real looming problem.

Landlord is foreclosed, bank sells at a loss, new owner rents at a lower amount. Nobody said it would be pretty.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#107

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

entangld wrote: post #30

jswinghammer wrote: post #17

I'm not sure the Post Office's problems are related to technology. Their union negotiated a "no layoff" provision in their contract just this year. Why would you agree to that as an employer? Then there is the problem of defined benefit pensions where you end up keeping people basically on staff long after they stop working for you. The Post Office needs to go bankrupt and clear these contracts out and move forward w…

>>I have work I need done now that I just do not have time for. I also know finding someone to do that job for what I'm willing to pay is very hard since people seem to get by without working via means I do not fully understand. People don't just need any job they can get. They need a job that will pay bills for a reasonable amount of time in the future. They need to save money to live on during the next job search.…

This high granularity of employment sounds like a terrible inefficiency. There are jobs that need to be done, but can't be, because they don't justify a full-time or part-time employee. There are people that need to work, but can't because much of the work that needs to be done is in chunks too small to occupy their time.

Perhaps we need something like an exchange for labor, like a stock exchange meets a temp agency. We could then transition chronically unemployed but capable workers into these labor exchanges.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#108

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:23 PM UTC

tjstankus wrote: post #12

The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can't capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance. Reminds me of this quote from Jello Biafra: Some day, even the experts will figure out, that crime is not caused by rap music...or even my music, but by a power structure of self-absorbed pr…

[deleted]

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#109

Post by derBaumstamm » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:24 PM UTC

tjstankus wrote: post #12

The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can't capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance. Reminds me of this quote from Jello Biafra: Some day, even the experts will figure out, that crime is not caused by rap music...or even my music, but by a power structure of self-absorbed pr…

Wonderful quote. I happen to be listening to the Insight cover on virus 100 as I read your post :)

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#110

Post by jcromartie » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:24 PM UTC

cwp wrote: post #91

jcromartie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right: Technology doesn't kill jobs. It kills demand. Who wants to send paper mail, or a landline phone, or to take out traditional classified ads? The alternatives are too appealing and the demand for the old versions is never coming back.

Ugh. No. The financial crisis killed demand.

The financial crisis did not make people buy mobile phones instead of landlines, Hulu and Netflix instead of cable TV, or Craigslist instead of local newspaper ads, or ebooks instead of paper books. It might have accelerated the shift, because the new technology was cheaper, but people naturally gravitate to the better product.

These technologies split, reorganized, transferred, concentrated or decentralized demand. Call it what you will, but people want the new stuff over the old stuff. And if they want it, they'll buy it.