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

The Abolition of Work (2002)

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–236 of 236 posts

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#231

Post by Viliam1234 »

daenz wrote: post #6

>Such is “work.” Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Work and play are both voluntary to different degrees. You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. You can also survive without playing, but again, your existence will also likely be miserable. Play is something we prefer to do voluntarily…

> Even if I didn't work, I still have to do things that I don't want to do in order to keep my life at the level that I want. I need to clean where I live, keep myself clean, keep my body healthy by eating healthy food and exercising.

How all these things you mentioned are different from having a job: You do not have regular meetings with managers who evaluate your perceived performance against your competitors. No daily standups. Crossfit or not -- your choice. Paleo or not -- your choice. You can take a day off whenever you want to. You don't have to exercise in open space.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#232

Post by lazyasciiart »

konjin wrote: post #228
lazyasciiart wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

You are using a welfare system available to under 20% of the population (in the best countries) to argue that the majority have access to a system that is well designed. This is moving the goalposts at best and outright intellectually dishonest at worst.

No, I'm not. The comment about pensioners was a throwaway note at the end of my comment about having been on welfare and knowing that your sweeping claims are simply wrong.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#233

Post by lazyasciiart »

burntoutfire wrote: post #203
lazyasciiart wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fine motor skill and expert timing are a given in automation, so let’s start by assuming the chef is not doing the physical work. And if we are trying to recreate the experience of eating at this chefs restaurant, then we aren’t taking them any food to improvise with, we will just eat one or two of the dishes they have already designed - so you may be picturing something more complicated than what would actually…

> The fine motor skill and expert timing are a given in automation I'm not convinced. For example, robots are absolutely terrible at handling cloth tasks (for example, folding laundry). I suspect that handling food, which has complex and unique (depending on ripeness etc.) physical responses to manipulation isn't much easier. Just try to give some in theory simple slicing tasks (such as - slicing an onion or a chicke…

I'm not talking about the robot you bought off Amazon. Robots do surgery and manufacturing these days, they are a little more capable than a 7 year old.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#234

Post by AshWolfy »

PurpleFoxy wrote: post #96
AshWolfy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The leftist desire to redistribute wealth (which I think is strongly misplaced and immoral) will become irrelevant once we achieve a certain level of abundance that is unlike anything we are accustomed to today. It will be like wanting to redistribute oxygen or dirt -- two resources so abundant they are essentially free. This is hopeless naive. There are more houses than there are homeless people, and yet the price…

Homelessness is largely not a housing supply issue. In my country you can quite easily get government welfare payments for an unlimited time which can realistically cover housing and all essentials. And yet we still have a load of homeless people. The problem is these people don’t need a house, they need a full time caregiver to manage their addictions and mental illnesses. The government and people are somewhat happ…

over half of homeless people in america have jobs, sixty to eighty percent dont have an addiction, seventy five percent dont have a serious mental illness and fifty five percent dont have any mental illness at all

im sure for some people thats the reason, but it is clearly not all

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#235

Post by AshWolfy »

sparkie wrote: post #147
AshWolfy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The leftist desire to redistribute wealth (which I think is strongly misplaced and immoral) will become irrelevant once we achieve a certain level of abundance that is unlike anything we are accustomed to today. It will be like wanting to redistribute oxygen or dirt -- two resources so abundant they are essentially free. This is hopeless naive. There are more houses than there are homeless people, and yet the price…

> yet the prices of houses continues to rise Or, the value of the money continues to decline. If you measure house prices in bitcoin over the past 10 years, then house prices have been in decline relative to bitcoin. This trend is likely to continue for some time. Under disinflationary money, houses will become a consumable rather than an attempt to store wealth. The cost of housing will decrease over time (although…

Bitcoin isnt money, you cant pay for almost any house with bitcoin. Deflation also isnt good because that will cause debts to rise relative to wages. If houses cease to be a source of wealth that will mean ruin for million. What does storing wealth in your head even mean?

If this is how low your understanding of economics are then i understand why you are a libertarian

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#236

Post by sparkie »

AshWolfy wrote: post #235
sparkie wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet the prices of houses continues to rise Or, the value of the money continues to decline. If you measure house prices in bitcoin over the past 10 years, then house prices have been in decline relative to bitcoin. This trend is likely to continue for some time. Under disinflationary money, houses will become a consumable rather than an attempt to store wealth. The cost of housing will decrease over time (although…

Bitcoin isnt money, you cant pay for almost any house with bitcoin. Deflation also isnt good because that will cause debts to rise relative to wages. If houses cease to be a source of wealth that will mean ruin for million. What does storing wealth in your head even mean? If this is how low your understanding of economics are then i understand why you are a libertarian

Bitcoin is money. The best money that has ever existed because it can't be debased and is more difficult to steal.

That it isn't widely accepted as a form of payment yet is nothing to worry about. It will come. It is inevitable.

Deflation is good because things get cheaper over time. The solution to debt is to stop getting into it.

Houses have already ceased to be a source of wealth. All house prices are declining in value w.r.t bitcoin. You can't stop this. Complaining won't get you anywhere. You can choose to ignore or accept this reality.

Storing wealth in your head means you can memorize a passphrase or BIP-39 seed phrase and recover access to your bitcoin anywhere on any machine, without having physical backups of your private keys which might get stolen.

How much do you understand about economics? Have you read any of the Austrians or are you just a fiat economist who ignores them?

Post reply on HN