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

Dear Marc Andreessen

al3x.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 194 posts

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#121

Post by sanswork »

bokonist wrote: post #104
sanswork wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your plan depends on everyone being able to work. There are a lot of illnesses and disabilities(physical and mental) that make that assertion not true. Would you have these people starve?

No, I said very clearly in my original comment that everyone gets a job, even schizophrenics and quadriplegics. There is something that everyone can do. If you are physically disabled you can monitor security cameras or transcribe city council recordings or something. If you are mentally disabled you can still probably pick up trash in city parks. There is some make work job available for almost anybody. The only exc…

Do you have any experience with people with mental illnesses or disabilities? "Everyone can work, we can find a job for everyone" just seems like something that could only be claimed from a position of ignorance. Further shown by your suggestion of having them pick up trash. People with a lot of mental illnesses aren't incapable of working due to a lack of skills.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#122

Post by 001sky »

bokonist wrote: post #107
eqdw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My policy preference would be a law that creating a universal wage subsidy of $7.75 an hour, thus guarantees every worker a total wage of at least $15 an hour. I really like this idea. Lately I've been thinking about minimum wage laws (SF, $15/hr min wage, etc) and something about it rubs me the wrong way. It feels like minimum wage laws are a convenient way for governments to take all the credit for improving the…

Yes, exactly. The economic right wing has a valid point, that many small business owners cannot bear the burden of a higher minimum wage. Asking a factory owner who is barely making payroll due to competition from China to boost his wages could be a death knell. The money for wage increases needs to come from those who are the big winners in the winner-takes-all-games that are technology and globalization.

Also, the value of min wage needs to be mapped on some topography of need. A $15/hr in SF or NYC is paltry due to the geographic localization of other prices--higher cost of living. Meanwhile, hiring 16 year in some middle-america towns probably shouldn't be dictated by "rich people's problems" imported from New York or California. All that being said, I also like the top-posters idea about adding a subsidy to basic negotiated/market wages. Because ultimately everything is simply a negotiation. And the non-work-related subsidy is something people can use to "walk"--so it's effective leverage as a tool of last resort.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#123

Post by lukasm »

bokonist wrote: post #22

I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow" In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money o…

Sure, a lot of stuff will get cheaper, but how are you gonna pay for that without any income? I speculate that countries in Europe will choose some form of Minimal Activity available for everybody. The transition faze will hurt. A lot.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#124

Post by glesica »

bokonist wrote: post #22

I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow" In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money o…

..."job of last resort" program...

But why? Why is it so necessary that everyone spend their days working? Why not just allow the structurally unemployed to pursue whatever it is that they want to do? I'm not saying we have to give them all mansions and butlers, but why do we have to make up fake, worthless jobs for them to do? It seems as though overall human happiness would be better optimized by allowing them to stay home or perhaps contribute to society in other ways than clocking in for a 9-to-5. The goal shouldn't be for all of humanity to be employed, the goal should be for all of humanity to have happy lives.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#125

Post by bokonist »

001sky wrote: post #122
bokonist wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. The economic right wing has a valid point, that many small business owners cannot bear the burden of a higher minimum wage. Asking a factory owner who is barely making payroll due to competition from China to boost his wages could be a death knell. The money for wage increases needs to come from those who are the big winners in the winner-takes-all-games that are technology and globalization.

Also, the value of min wage needs to be mapped on some topography of need. A $15/hr in SF or NYC is paltry due to the geographic localization of other prices--higher cost of living. Meanwhile, hiring 16 year in some middle-america towns probably shouldn't be dictated by "rich people's problems" imported from New York or California. All that being said, I also like the top-posters idea about adding a subsidy to basic…

If SF or NYC wants a higher wage, the city could augment the subsidy out of its own tax coffers.

I am however, very much against the idea of taxing a machinist in Alabama to subsidize wages in NYC.

I am also amenable to the idea of having the subsidy only be for those over 18, or people who are supporting families.

But I do think it is reasonable to provide $15 jobs in middle America. Right now, young people feel a compulsion to head to NYC/SF/DC to gain access to these job markets, which feed off the money surplus from winner-take-all-industries. I would rather that the money get spread around more, and that once again a decent middle class life would be easy to obtain in what is now known as the rust belt.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#126

Post by bokonist »

sanswork wrote: post #121
bokonist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I said very clearly in my original comment that everyone gets a job, even schizophrenics and quadriplegics. There is something that everyone can do. If you are physically disabled you can monitor security cameras or transcribe city council recordings or something. If you are mentally disabled you can still probably pick up trash in city parks. There is some make work job available for almost anybody. The only exc…

Do you have any experience with people with mental illnesses or disabilities? "Everyone can work, we can find a job for everyone" just seems like something that could only be claimed from a position of ignorance. Further shown by your suggestion of having them pick up trash. People with a lot of mental illnesses aren't incapable of working due to a lack of skills.

It really depends on the mental illness. Most mentally ill people could do something, most of the time. What exactly they could do would depend on the particular illness. Many are not currently hireable because even one episode a week is enough to get them fired. Some are not currently hirable because they have been out of the workforce for so long, that they have lost a bunch of habits. I think that could be remedied.

But, as I said, if they are really incapable of any possible employment, then they should get treatment and supportive housing.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#127

Post by lacero »

wutbrodo wrote: post #93
coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. The problem is accelerating technology doesn't make the world automatically better either. It can also make it patently worse. E.g, someone presses the red button, and here's a nuclear war. Or some idiot gets access to viruses, and here's a bio attack that wipes out half the population. It's t…

> Compared to that kind of harm to the whole of humanity, some people getting an "artificial heart", a guy walking on the moon, and being able to exchange IMs with WhatsApp on one's mobile is not that much of an balance at all. Just something to keep in mind, lest someone thinks technology is all just "embetterment". Woah, what? Are you really saying that the negative uses of technology in the World Wars have outweig…

I think he was referring to the negative effects of technology such as global warming, pollution from fertilizers, chemicals and plastics, poor farm conditions, tainted food supplies, weapons, citizen spy technology, etc.

That was beside the point though because your point is still valid that the "good" technology, which is hopefully the point of most technology, should not be held back for such superficial reasons. As someone smart once said, why should we build single man operated bulldozers when we can hire 10,000 men with spoons to do the digging?

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#128

Post by corford »

patrickaljord wrote: post #114
corford wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair criticism. To be honest, I just (arrogantly) assumed we'd reached a point and accumulated enough evidence to remove any argument that the 20th century's experiments with communism and socialism and the recent 25 year infatuation with neoliberalism were anything other than overall failures. Judging by the down votes I'm getting, I'm clearly wrong and the idealogical battles rage on (mine included).

In what way has neoliberalism been a failure? Most prosperous countries are the ones that practice it the most (Switzerland, Hong Kong) and EU countries who have gotten better lately have been the ones taking neoliberals measures by cutting state spending (UK) and in South America the best economies have freed their ecomonies the most. There is nothing that can beat a free market economy, sure you can regulated to so…

It's the "few regulations as possible" part of neoliberalism that has, for me at least, been the unquestionable failure.

The following could all have been avoided or had the scope of their damage drastically reduced had better regulation been in place:

LTCM and the Asia crisis in the 90s, the flood of bad IPOs in the dotcom era, the subprime and CDO disaster that sparked 2008, the asset bubbles over the last three decades (e.g. the UK housing market after mortgage LTV regulations were relaxed), the extreme widening of the gap between rich and poor.

A more nuanced and sensible approach to regulation than neoliberalism promotes doesn't (in my opinion) mean we'll suddenly see a reversal of all the good bits a very lightly regulated, market orientated economy has brought us and the return to inefficient, planned economies. It just means removing the shocks, excesses and some (by no means all) of the inequalities an uncompromising belief in 'free market economics over everything else' appears to invite.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#129

Post by rodgerd »

bokonist wrote: post #104
sanswork wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your plan depends on everyone being able to work. There are a lot of illnesses and disabilities(physical and mental) that make that assertion not true. Would you have these people starve?

No, I said very clearly in my original comment that everyone gets a job, even schizophrenics and quadriplegics. There is something that everyone can do. If you are physically disabled you can monitor security cameras or transcribe city council recordings or something. If you are mentally disabled you can still probably pick up trash in city parks. There is some make work job available for almost anybody. The only exc…

This sounds horribly like the old Soviet Union, where everyone had a right to a job, whether you liked it or not.

Re: Dear Marc Andreessen

#130

Post by bokonist »

glesica wrote: post #124
bokonist wrote: post #22

I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow" In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money o…

..."job of last resort" program... But why? Why is it so necessary that everyone spend their days working? Why not just allow the structurally unemployed to pursue whatever it is that they want to do? I'm not saying we have to give them all mansions and butlers, but why do we have to make up fake, worthless jobs for them to do? It seems as though overall human happiness would be better optimized by allowing them to s…

I answered that same question here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7907937 I think most people are not natural aristocrats. They are not going to be tinkering in their home laboratories, crafting programming languages or writing ebooks. I fear that most people will degenerate in every manner if not subjected to the discipline of work. They will end up drinking and playing video games all day long. Furthermore, I think most people want to work, it provides purpose and fulfillment.

That said, as long as I'm social engineering a solution to the nation's problems, why not try an A/B test? Try giving the money away with no strings attached in one city or state (far away from me please) and see what happens. I am just more pessimistic about human nature than you are, so I do not think it will end well. I think there is a lot of evidence about the problems of idleness from the history of welfare and housing projects.

A compromise would be to make one of the "make work" options be an artistic or technological fellowship. So if you went to your employment office for your make work, and said you were working on an art project or new programming language, they would pay you to do that, you would just have to show some progress along the way.

Post reply on HN