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

The Future of Not Working

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#221

Post by arjie »

harryh wrote: post #17
hackathonguy wrote: post #5

"One estimate, generated by Laurence Chandy and Brina Seidel of the Brookings Institution, recently calculated that the global poverty gap — meaning how much it would take to get everyone above the poverty line — was just $66 billion. That is roughly what Americans spend on lottery tickets every year, and it is about half of what the world spends on foreign aid." Love this.

I'm really curious about the math on that $66 billion number. According to the world bank there are about 750 million people living in extreme poverty. We only need to give them $88/year to get them out of it? And that's just the people in "extreme poverty." It'll be even less if we move up the income scale a bit. The number seems low to me.

I suppose the idea is that they'll spend the money in th local economy and prosper as a result. The starving man can't do much, but the guy who has more than he needs to survive can participate in the economy not just as a consumer.

Can't say that explains it all but presumably there are other things like that.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#222

Post by rorykoehler »

coldpie wrote: post #193
rorykoehler wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if compulsory national service in these areas for individuals who don't contribute over x% or $yy.. in personal income tax a year would work?

The last person I want teaching or caring for my old body is someone being forced to do so. Rather, we should increase the incentive for people to train in those areas by increasing their wages.

My idea is more an incentive to get the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes so we can find initiatives like you suggest.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#223

Post by marmot777 »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #209
marmot777 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you've got this wrong. First off, let's distinguish our terms to prevent completely muddled thinking. There are different flavors of socialism: national socialism, communist flavor socialism, democratic socialism. You seem to lump democratic (aka European style socialism) with the heavy handed-killed-20-million-of-his-own-people Stalin-style central planning socialism. You can be opposed to democratic socialism j…

How long have you been living in a country where everything is basic? Your job, your income, your home, your education, your healthcare? What do you know about how humans living under sutch conditions act and how sutch systems end up? You call it ideology, I call it experience. [Edit:] I appreciate your intent to build up a working socialism and not to fvck it up this time. But some systems simply does not work with…

I live in the U.S. and I'm not sure what you're saying about everything being basic. This is about the reality of automation and, soon, AI, not to mention other economic forces whereby far fewer jobs available than people needed to fill those jobs. I assume since you are here in HN you are well aware of what I'm talking about.

So what are your ideas to mitigate the problem? Or would you rather cling to your ideology rather than think about a problem that's destined to destabilize the system that supports your existence? If the basic assumptions and agreements that make civilization possible go out the window, you go out the window as well.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd go easy on the red herrings. Talking about UI does is not the same as talking about the other things you mentioned.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#224

Post by apozem »

Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

> Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth.

No. Forced sterilization is eugenics, and we've seen what happens with that [1]. Eugenics is unconscionable for moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian reasons. When you give government or the private sector or any human being the ability to control other humans' reproduction, that power is ripe for horrific abuse. We know this because that's exactly what happened last time [2].

Not to go full Godwin on you, but eugenics is literally the philosophy behind the Nazis (see [1]).

Overpopulation will be an issue eventually. Better to solve it through more creative means, like becoming a 2+-planet species.

[1]: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...

Re: The Future of Not Working

#225

Post by sewercake »

cannonpr wrote: post #143
Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

I do wonder about the "not everyone can contribute" perhaps they can't contribute in building cars, but with a cultural shift and education, well there are a lot of avenues of research and mathematics that only require thought and basic tools like chalk. I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources. This ofcourse assumes we haven't figured out strong AÍ or we don't want to, cause th…

> I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources

This feels like a pretty strong over-application of the computational metaphor, my friend.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#226

Post by fwn »

eternalban wrote: post #187
bennettfeely wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mandate reversible sterilization at birth. This sounds like an absolutely atrocious idea ripe for corruption. It would be only a matter of time before those programs target the poor, those who whose political views, religious views, or ethnic origins are unwanted or inconvenient.

If you are willing to go that far, why not "mandate" no robots?

Because this is the nogo alternative of a false dichotomy designed to support the other presented route.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#227

Post by douche »

cannonpr wrote: post #143
Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

I do wonder about the "not everyone can contribute" perhaps they can't contribute in building cars, but with a cultural shift and education, well there are a lot of avenues of research and mathematics that only require thought and basic tools like chalk. I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources. This ofcourse assumes we haven't figured out strong AÍ or we don't want to, cause th…

> I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources.

If we extend the metaphor, there are 4004s and there are i7s. You need a lot of 4004s to equal the output of one i7. That many 4004s use a lot more watts than the one i7, and at some point the value isn't there.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#228

Post by Razengan »

Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

Parent poster here. Just to make it clear, I am not advocating eugenics or anything, just saying that some form of basic income seems to be the only option if we want the human race to flourish and science/technology to advance.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#229

Post by cylinder »

Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

How does the left wing reconcile its push for UBI, more redistribution to compensate for automation job loss, etc., with an unquestioned belief in immigration or even open borders?

You cannot have UBI due to lack of jobs but then also have the US' current family-based immigration system. It would be a different situation if we were specifically targeting skilled robotics engineers and AI coders from around the world, but we put those people through the ringer to favor an unskilled third world immigrant because his brother is a US citizen.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#230

Post by stmfreak »

cylinder wrote: post #229
Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

How does the left wing reconcile its push for UBI, more redistribution to compensate for automation job loss, etc., with an unquestioned belief in immigration or even open borders? You cannot have UBI due to lack of jobs but then also have the US' current family-based immigration system. It would be a different situation if we were specifically targeting skilled robotics engineers and AI coders from around the world,…

Simple, the leftists believe you pay for UBI from the limitless resources confiscated from the "rich." /s
Post reply on HN