Are jobs obsolete? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#141

Post by hackinthebochs » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

dreamdu5t wrote: post #139

hackinthebochs wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, the quote is not referring to any particular person. The rest of your points are tangential to the quote, but I'll address them anyways. Claiming lack of funds is not an issue is misguided. The problem with property-taxes-fund-education is that in poor areas, the funds derived from property taxes are much much lower than in a more well off area. These are the areas that require even greater investment to c…

That may be true, and I personally agree that property taxes shouldn't fund education in that manner. However, that doesn't mean that the removal of private property will result in more education or more money for education. Jello's quote implies that the root cause of unemployment and undereducation is partly the system of private property. He is a self-professed anarchist, so I don't know why people are trying to c…

I don't know anything about the author, so you're probably right about how he means the quote to be taken.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#142

Post by orangecat » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #67

ippisl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without some regulation , why would the work week become shorter ? for many people , working a 40 hour work week barely covers their expenses. why would they want to work less ?

I've always thought that a 30 hr work week should be regulated, forcing employees to demand higher wages in order to survive, forcing employers to raise wages, and forcing CEOs to be paid less , thus reducing the income gap.

"Reducing the income gap" is not an inherently good thing. If it is, you should be thrilled with the current economy: incomes for the rich have fallen more on a percentage basis than for the poor and middle class.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#143

Post by Iv » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #107

entangld wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.…

Hello, I'm a freelancer. I'll do the job you want for 150% of my former salary, yet at a lower price that my boss sold it to you !

I wonder why everyone is not doing that... I cut the middle men, so that means I get to go to dinner with clients, I get to negotiate prices, I got to be friend with the CEO of the startup that employs me.

I always suspected that the salary of a commercial was a high price for a very comfortable job, and I can confirm it !

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#144

Post by analyst74 » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:51 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.

keeping over-priced goods at inflated price using whatever means will never work out in the long term. that applies to real-estate too, which (the real-estate industry) seems to have become the driving economic sector in many countries, which I find funny.

edit: and a note on why it's funny, the value of a property never changes, only the price.

From an individual perspective, you can make money trading real-estate just like trading stocks; from government's perspective, higher GDP is always good; from bank's perspective, as long as property value increases, they will make money from both interest and foreclosures; but from a society perspective, nothing of value was ever created in the process.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#145

Post by jbooth » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:51 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #122

CWuestefeld wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

those with wealth, are too greedy to allow their wealth to be taxed for social services such as better schools My property tax bills beg to disagree with you. For the 16 years I've owned my house, I've watched the portion of my taxes that go to our schools go up far faster than the rate of inflation. If there's a problem with education, it is absolutely NOT that there is insufficient money being invested into it. Thi…

Of course, the quote is not referring to any particular person. The rest of your points are tangential to the quote, but I'll address them anyways. Claiming lack of funds is not an issue is misguided. The problem with property-taxes-fund-education is that in poor areas, the funds derived from property taxes are much much lower than in a more well off area. These are the areas that require even greater investment to c…

Actually, FWIW, urban low-income districts typically get more money per pupil than suburban ones. Why and where it goes is a much longer discussion than I have time to get into, but it's basically personnel and specialists.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#146

Post by MatthewPhillips » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:53 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #124

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that 3/4th - 9/10th of spending is on luxury goods?

It really depends on what you consider a luxury good. For example, some amount of housing is a "necessity", some amount is "nice to have", and some is "luxury", but I doubt people agree on the boundaries. The bar of what people consider a necessity seems to rise with income, so people recategorize what they would've once seen as luxury as non-luxury. I was recently adding up what it would take to live in a cheap-ish…

Job availability and wages also decrease when you do that.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#147

Post by jbooth » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:53 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #131

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…

[deleted]

They can always do the layoffs later, in the meantime they got more labor at a cheaper unit cost. It's typically a good deal, managers getting the advantage from a union sense of solidarity. If it was a really bad deal, you'd assume they wouldn't take it, right?

The only major risk is creating more pension liability by another year of service for some people, but if you're laying them off you have to pay that pension anyways, plus take a big short term hit paying out that much accumulated leave in one go.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#148

Post by jcarden » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:53 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #86

cwp wrote: post #77

There is a nugget of useful discussion in there, in that corporations aren't as necessary as they used to be. Better communication technology lowers coordination costs and we don't need big organization and bureaucracy to get big things done anymore. But the whole "technology is destroying jobs" meme is just horseshit. What's destroying jobs in the US is lack of demand. Other counties (no, not all of them, but many)…

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.

Technology kills demand for a particular procedure or function, this dampens aggregate demand which in turn eliminates the need for the function or procedure provider in the form of a job

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#149

Post by learc83 » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:54 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…

Many of the problems with the post office are caused by congress. The set rules that handicap them and expect the post office to run profitably. For instance, if congress hadn't mandated overzealous pre-funding requirements the post office would be solvent.

Re: Are jobs obsolete?

#150

Post by dreamdu5t » Wed, Sep 07, 2011, 6:54 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #141

dreamdu5t wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true, and I personally agree that property taxes shouldn't fund education in that manner. However, that doesn't mean that the removal of private property will result in more education or more money for education. Jello's quote implies that the root cause of unemployment and undereducation is partly the system of private property. He is a self-professed anarchist, so I don't know why people are trying to c…

I don't know anything about the author, so you're probably right about how he means the quote to be taken.

:) He's the lead singer of a famous punk band and also a niche celebrity for his public speaking, usually on topics ranging from social injustice, racism, religion, and anarchy.