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

A nation of slaves

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: A nation of slaves

#141

Post by stefantalpalaru »

drcode wrote: post #100
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #2

An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

FYI, I created an infographic recently that teaches people all the details they need to know about basic income: http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png

This system leaves out the "from each according to his ability"[1] part that's the root of totalitarian regimes.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...

Re: A nation of slaves

#142

Post by nhaehnle »

jdimov wrote: post #103
ekianjo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if your grandparents hadn't worked their asses off, you would live in a very different world right now. It's easy to say now that you are in a comfortable place where you can afford everything for almost nothing, but it was a very different world back then. Let's not forget that. And even now, you can afford things because people in China and other countries are working their asses off to make cheap stuff for de…

Your history is just as flawed as your understanding of work, value and progress (in other words, you've been brainwashed). "Hard work" has always been a domain reserved exclusively for the slaves. The "virtue" of hard work is just a shallow manipulation tactic devised by those in power. None of this has changed today. What IS changing, however, is that as knowledge becomes more readily available, fewer and fewer peo…

The "virtue" of hard work is just a shallow manipulation tactic devised by those in power.

How is this an argument against what ekianjo wrote? Yes, there has (almost?) always been a privileged upper class that had much more leisure than the masses. Still, the fact remains that living standards would have been lower had a majority of the population not worked their asses off.

Should the distribution of work be adjusted? Absolutely! In our current world, inequality is so high, and to a large extent unjustly high, that it's sickening. But there is still a whole lot of work that needs to be done to maintain our living standards.

Re: A nation of slaves

#143

Post by electromagnetic »

bausson wrote: post #17
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #2

An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filli…

I work construction, and even though my job is a long way from being lost due to automation (strong AI to work reliably with low oversight and human scale maneuverability), it's going to come in.

My skills are all over, but my job is external renovations. We've gone from wood siding, soffit, fascia and shingles to predominantly metals and plastics that are now getting increased longevity. If new houses were built with the best materials, it wouldn't need work done to it for 40+ years.

Stone coated galvalume (iirc aluminum coated galvanized steel) is a true 40 year shingle. Their operating lifespan is likely to extend past 60 years before it absolutely had to be replaced (ie leaks). If that was available for a siding material or for fascia cladding, it would be >100 year longevity. (Shingles on a vertical wall typically last up to 3-4 times their rated lifetime for a roofing application - so 120-160 years).

If a customer gets their whole house done, they'll never be a return customer with our current materials. The work I'm doing today will be redone by a robot, I guarantee it.

We need basic income because almost every job can eventually be automated out. What about the day we're using nanobots? A tree branch damaged your eavestrough? Just pick up a pail of nanobots at the store and pour it into the reservoir in your basement that your houses computer handles all repairs and renovations. Who am I kidding, they'll probably be made by a nanofabricator you have that makes all your material things.

Re: A nation of slaves

#144

Post by lotharbot »

raldi wrote: post #84

This article is predicated on the idea that, because we're more efficient today than 1930, we should be able to work less and live the same lifestyle. Well, in fact, we can. But you can't ignore those last three words: you have to live the same lifestyle as a typical 1930s person. * No internet. * No TV. * No air conditioning. * No cell phone. * No car. * Bunk beds for your kids. * One bathroom for the whole house. *…

I like to make this point using housing data from the census bureau.

A typical 1930s person, or even early 1970s person, lived in a 1500 square foot or smaller house. Houses built in the last decade or so average 2200 square feet. Many people could work a lot less just by moving into a smaller place and having the subsequent reduction in rent/mortgage and utilities.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/pdf/...

Re: A nation of slaves

#145

Post by conanbatt »

habosa wrote: post #112

The discussion here ( http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra... ) which is linked from the original post is, imo, more interesting and thought provoking. I think most people can immediately identify with the idea of "working" 40 hours while really only doing 15 hours of hard work and 25 hours of paper pushing and procrastinating. Maybe not in your current job but almost certainly in some job you…

I think this reasoning doesnt depict the real model.

If you are supposed to do 15 hours of real work, the ambiance of leaving when you are done with it is in the best case, going to let you do those 15 hours, but worst case you wont even fullfill that.

An example of that is finishing up something, and then a bug pops out after someone checks it out. If you are not in the office, your work is incomplete.

For the value vs work proposition, its entirely inapplicable for everyday operations. Who is measuring the value? and how do you get to influence those decisions? If you get to work a project brought down from the product manager, you implement it completely, and the project turns up to be a total bust, or just useless, or not used, you provided 0 value. Does that mean you have to work extra to make up for that?

Or you work a couple of hours rogue-like and discover a dev-ops inefficiency and you can cut down server costs 10%, saving the company 100ks of money. Does that mean you don't have to show up for work anymore?

So value is not the word at play here, its maybe the efficacy of going through your work load. The more time you spend commited the more you will do, and that is pretty strict. The guy doing 15 is not going to get more than his own version doing 40, no matter what.

Re: A nation of slaves

#146

Post by conanbatt »

socalnate1 wrote: post #131
habosa wrote: post #112

The discussion here ( http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra... ) which is linked from the original post is, imo, more interesting and thought provoking. I think most people can immediately identify with the idea of "working" 40 hours while really only doing 15 hours of hard work and 25 hours of paper pushing and procrastinating. Maybe not in your current job but almost certainly in some job you…

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law , "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." I don't think most people make the conscious choice to drag out their work, it just happens naturally as our work expands to fill the time we've committed to being in the office.

The book Peopleware condemns Parkinsons Law as unproven.

The problem with Parkinson's Law is that management also knows it, so they think they can constrict their deadlines a lot and the work will get done, and if its not, they can pressure you to work extra hours to do it.

Re: A nation of slaves

#147

Post by crusso »

pessimizer wrote: post #110
ekianjo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if your grandparents hadn't worked their asses off, you would live in a very different world right now. It's easy to say now that you are in a comfortable place where you can afford everything for almost nothing, but it was a very different world back then. Let's not forget that. And even now, you can afford things because people in China and other countries are working their asses off to make cheap stuff for de…

But there's little to no positive connection between who does the hard work and who gets rewarded for it. Nobody in China nor other country is working their ass off to make cheap stuff for developed countries. They're working their asses off to feed themselves and their families. The effort: very high. The value: not so much for them. I get what you're saying, but covering the effort in valor and moral superiority as…

The value: not so much for them.

How is a "dramatic reduction in poverty" not of much value?

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/sta...

Re: A nation of slaves

#148

Post by king_jester »

rayiner wrote: post #99
angersock wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to hold you to task, here: what exactly constitutes "flourishing"? I'd bet you mean something other than mindless growth and expansion--just want to make sure.

What I mean to say is that if the need to produce material things vanishes, people don't replace that need by producing art and culture and placing increased emphasis on family, friends and community. By "flourishing," I don't refer to material production, but social prosperity. Having seen both, a ghetto in a U.S. inner city is objectively much more materially prosperous, partly thanks to government support, than a…

> Having seen both, a ghetto in a U.S. inner city is objectively much more materially prosperous, partly thanks to government support, than a village in Bangladesh, yet if you look at crime, social cohesion, family cohesion, etc, the latter is more socially prosperous.

There is social and family cohesion in the inner city, but it doesn't look like middle class cohesion. Keep in mind that racial and class de-facto segregation is really high in the inner city, police more heavily target your community and are more likely to arrest you, and economic opportunities are limited in a variety of fashions (esp. property and business ownership). Things like gangs and grey market economies are a result of those conditions and they do provide real value for people even if it is associated with cycles of violence and things that are generally bad.

> Work creates roles for people, it creates hierarchies of authority, and it binds families and the community together into a common purpose.

Work does not inherently create hierarchies of authority, there are many models of work and social structure that have different results when it comes to hierarchy. Work also doesn't necessarily create or enhance communities and can sometimes even be deleterious to them.

Re: A nation of slaves

#149

Post by conanbatt »

jerf wrote: post #98
bausson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filli…

"Basic income mean huge changes" I have to admit this alone is enough to give me pause. The logic goes something like: "Our current social system has produced astonishing wealth. We can therefore take this to change our current social system and distribute the wealth more widely. Hooray, we fixed things!" But this amounts to a rewriting of the social system. We have no guarantees that the next social system will prod…

BI requires lots of experimentation, cant go from 0 to BI nationwide in one day.

The "wealth creation" argument is flimsy, but recognizing that the consequences of BI are unknown is not.

Also, i found this phrase really upsetting: "A society that is paying more for its basic needs is a poorer society"

It would have been a perfectly applicable argument against abolishing slavery. I can assure you that all low-end jobs like serving burguers, cleaning up toilets, and the sort are not doing by people choosing what they want to do from assorted options and incentives. They have no other choices, its doing that or starving. If you are not cleaning toilets, then you have all the incentives to go against BI, becuase you are way more likely to have to do your own sandwiches, clean your own office, serve and cook your own food, etc.

I find it dignified that people can choose that they want to do, and very much like the slave owner sucked up his loss of stature, middle-class and upper-class should suck up to not having wage slaves cleaning up after them.

Re: A nation of slaves

#150

Post by nhaehnle »

molsongolden wrote: post #43
gregpilling wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While having a beer last week with some friends, the topic turned to the old question "What would you do if you suddenly had $20 million dollars handed to you?". This is an old question of course, on HN it would be called F U money, but it had been asked that day by a customer of my friend Kevin. Kevin makes jewelry tools. His immediate response was "I could buy more tools and machines!", which was my basic response…

> "I think humans like to do things. Make games, write software, build sandcastles, etc. Removing the need for work would not remove the work. The work would just be what we found to be entertaining to ourselves, instead of a job to eat." This is part of the issue that arises. I've spoken with many people about the concept of a low-scarcity, low-growth, etc... leisure economy and the responses are surprising. "But th…

Some people just don't have passions strong enough to drive their lives.

As much as I hate to say this, I'm afraid that this is probably empirically true (although you have to be careful about the precise conclusions you draw from this).

Most Western countries today are in a state of mass long term unemployment - there are millions of people who have not had a job for a year or more.

What are these people doing today? Obviously they have only limited access to resources, but at least in European countries, they tend not to be starving. Are they leading fulfilling lives? Anecdotally, the answer appears to be no.

I do like the idea of giving everybody enough money for a decent life, no questions asked. It is a fundamentally good idea, and we can probably afford it. But to think that that will solve all our problems is just naive.

In fact, I think the combination of direct job creation for full employment (defined as zero involuntary unemployment) and a basic income is a valuable goal. The great thing is that both policies are probably beneficial just by themselves already, even though they should be combined.

Post reply on HN