What if jobs are not the solution but the problem? • Hacker News Board

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#161

Post by ant6n » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 11:54 PM UTC

AmirS2 wrote: post #87

Practicality wrote: post #4

At this point I've already come to accept that fulltime labor for everyone is simply not going to happen. We just don't need it. The big question is will the majority be able to maintain enough power to obtain income for those who aren't working, or will we see some kind of serious class warfare/starving populations? This is a huge question in human history and it remains to be seen how we as a species are going to a…

> fulltime labor for everyone is simply not going to happen. We just don't need it. and from the article > there’s not enough work to go around I disagree. There's not enough paid employment to go around, but there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done! Our entire society needs to be weaned off its carbon dependence if we want humans to survive the next century. This will involve at the very least the w…

Given that the total of humanity produces all necessary food, consumables and other services today, it seems that humanity generates and requires an amount of work that seems to be in some sort of equilibrium right now. The rest is just a matter of distribution.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#162

Post by rndmize » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 11:55 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #35

lucideer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, I agree with the overall content of your post. However your first and last sentences really emphasise for me the real problem: oversimplifying and stratifying the discussion. "Nonsense" is an extreme overstatement, there are nuances to both arguments. "This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely wha…

How do you build a system that is stable where an individual is expected to leave some personal gain on the table? That runs entirely counter to human nature. If you can solve that you may have something workable, but without it "Nonsense" is as good a word as any.

> That runs entirely counter to human nature.

Not so. Tribal societies inherently function on everyone in the tribe working for the overall good rather than their individual gain. Socially, this is how we function by default - people will make sacrifices, extend loans, give gifts, and generally help out those close to them (family, friends, tribe members) without an expectation of something in return.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#163

Post by lucideer » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 11:55 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #37

lucideer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, I agree with the overall content of your post. However your first and last sentences really emphasise for me the real problem: oversimplifying and stratifying the discussion. "Nonsense" is an extreme overstatement, there are nuances to both arguments. "This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely wha…

"This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not. This makes as much sense as saying "You say that my magical spacecraft won't work due to the laws of physics, but physics is exactly the problem: We can't…

I said nothing about ignoring economics 101. I'm talking about application of principles in moderation, accounting for nuance, and it's again been framed as an extreme absolute.

That said, as other commenters have pointed it, it is a little rich comparing economics to physics

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#164

Post by justneedto » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 11:55 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #62

ben_jones wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Take something relatively recent, water resistance in modern smart phones, had Samsung R&D not gone down that rabbit hole it would not be nearly as ubiquitous.

To be accurate, Sony did it first with their Xperia Z line.

My Nokia 3310 survived the cloth washer twice. Fifteen years ago. It's battery also lasted for several weeks.

This line of reasoning is amusingly similar to NIH-syndrome.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#165

Post by nhaehnle » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 11:56 PM UTC

pygy_ wrote: post #107

AmirS2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fulltime labor for everyone is simply not going to happen. We just don't need it. and from the article > there’s not enough work to go around I disagree. There's not enough paid employment to go around, but there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done! Our entire society needs to be weaned off its carbon dependence if we want humans to survive the next century. This will involve at the very least the w…

The constant supply solar of energy (and finite supply of mineral energy sources) also means that we won't be able to grow the economy indefinitely and need to find a way to transition to a system that thrives at equilibrium.

The rate of CO2 emission per GDP is already decreasing thanks to technological advances. There's no fundamental reason why the same couldn't happen to the ratio of energy use per GDP. So finite supply of resources is not a problem per se, and certainly won't be within our lifetimes, which is what we need to deal with.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#166

Post by _7fvc » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 11:56 PM UTC

I think it's an effect of globalization. Once you're linked to other economies, you'll have to run at full speed to compete with the other guys.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#167

Post by freshhawk » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 11:58 PM UTC

bertiewhykovich wrote: post #77

Please just read Marx already.

But what of the risk to your mental health if you end up realizing that how much money you make isn't measuring how much value you provide to society?

Or that, there are inherent contradictions in capitalism and therefore people have lied to you. The system is more complex and less rational than you thought. That would mean that we aren't in Fukuyama's post-ideological, end-of-history era!

Sounds terrifying, maybe it is better to avoid becoming an educated adult.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#168

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 12:04 AM UTC

carsongross wrote: post #2

The essay suffers from Ted-talk disease: lots of grand gestures and bromides, not as much rigorous thinking. The underlying problem is an important one, however. A little-discussed solution to this problem is one I would like to see tried, distributism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism A book I am currently reading (and enjoying) on it is: https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist...

Thanks for the pointer, a new word for me.

In my own thinking I've been leaning towards representing the commons, with some institution, as the sole owner of property, aiming for a good distribution by renting instead. I see some similarities of sentiment.

Perhaps even the same thought taken to an extreme?

The distribution coming from two aspects. The income form rent is itself distributed evenly constituting a basic income for all. Some form of auctioning should ensure that the rent represents the current value, it also ensures the resource being allocated to the highest bidder (the one capable of providing the highest value use for the resource). Since resources must be rented also avoiding the feedback loops that encourage hoarding of capital just for rent extraction.

Thoughts in that direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#169

Post by dvtv75 » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 12:05 AM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #64

Forget the word "job" and instead use the word "value" to understand just how silly this idea is. What he's saying is that no one needs to do anything of value anymore. You know, like the guy who built the house you live in, chopped down the trees it was built with, managed the project to build it, inspected the building to make sure it was put together correctly, etc... Hundreds of people had jobs to make the shelte…

Perhaps if you read the article without the intent to argue everything written because it contradicts your ideology?

> What he's saying is that no one needs to do anything of value anymore.

Can you point to the particular sentence where this is stated? Didn't think so.

The article I read said that the majority of jobs aren't paid at a level appropriate to their value, and that without the (rather limited US) welfare programs to support them, the bulk of employees would be below the poverty line, and with the impending automation of almost 50% of available jobs it'll be those bottom-line jobs that go.

The article then tells us that we'll need to redefine our attitudes to both income and work, but nowhere can I find the statement that "no one needs to do anything of value anymore." It tells us that almost half of the population already don't do anything of sufficient value, and many of those jobs are going to go away.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#170

Post by tachyonbeam » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 12:06 AM UTC

chadcmulligan wrote: post #136

Maybe a better approach is how can we spend the surplus labour? There are lots of things I see need doing looking around my neighbourhood - public parks need cleaning up, old houses could be torn down and make some nice new ones, old roads could be fixed. Probably stacks of other things. Maybe some creative accounting will enable us to do these things? I know national parks near me have great paths that were built in…

I agree with this sentiment. There is a lot of work that needs doing. There are also a lot of parents out there with young children who could use a nanny. There's a need for more therapists, or just people to talk to.

There's a lot of work that needs doing. There's an abundance of people to do the work, and I feel like we have plenty of natural resources. It seems to me that we could build housing for everyone, we have the capability to do it. It's just that our economic model isn't about the betterment of manking, providing the people what they need, etc.

If you told an unemployed man that he could have guaranteed food, clothing, medical care, lodging and basic income for his family if he goes work a job where he builds houses for other family in need, I think that would be a very appealing offer.