Earlier quoted context omitted.
While nice, neither of these strikes me as truly disruptive. The downside is that to achieve the best educational environment, you'd have to open a school which doesn't scale nicely unless you plug into existing "world APIs". I guess you could start by opening a co-working space with a supervising adult (not teacher, this adult will be there to ensure that the kids aren't killing each other). There would be teachers…
"A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer", perhaps?
Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
281–290 of 406 posts
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, I'll bite. How do the workers so recently unemployed by the automated machines gain ownership of those machines in a way that does not entirely remove the incentive for building them?
Something of a loaded question, but more, a super hard question. Your question is loaded because it assumes that ownership of such machines is the best solution for those made unemployed by them - I think this is probably flawed, because management is a different skill set than direct contribution. The problem is that the worker's skills have lost value. They need new skills - management skills for owning the machine…
I don't think it can even be answered with that assumption included. Let's say you have a cobbler, who makes shoes. He recently lost his job to the burgomeister's new Elfbot 4000, that can make the same quality of shoe, but turns out 2 dozen pairs in a single night.
The Elfbot 4k runs all week on a single saucer of milk, without sleeping. The cobbler has to eat 2000 kcal every day, and sleep 8h every night. It is completely obvious that the cobbler can no longer compete in the shoe market with the Elfbot. The value of the cobbler's one marketable skill has been devastated by automation. So the cobbler cannot raise enough money from selling shoes to buy the Elfbot. No matter how hard the cobbler works, his productive output cannot reach a level high enough to equal the value of the Elfbot.
So the cobbler would have to get the money from somewhere else. But the burgomeister is the richest man in town, and the only one with enough money to lend out. Why would he give a loan to the cobbler, to buy the robot, whose production would be used to pay off the loan, when he could just sell the production and get the money without that source of default risk?
So the cobbler could also just steal the Elfbot. But if Elfbots could just be stolen willy-nilly, no one would bother keeping one. The burgomeister would obviously have to defend his property against one-man robberies.
That leaves a torch-and-pitchfork rebellion. After that happens, no one bothers bringing new machines to the village, because they don't want to lose their property.
Or the cobbler could study the machine, and build his own, if it can be done cheaply enough. Unfortunately for him, the burgomeister has a patent, which equates copying with theft.
The only way for the cobbler to own an Elfbot is if he is the first to build one. And that just puts all the other cobblers in his shoes for the above scenarios.
The displaced workers just can't get the capital in a capitalist society through the use of their obsoleted skill, and the capital is not created as quickly or as easily in a non-capitalist society. They would have to acquire a different marketable skill to be able to afford one, but once they have that skill, they no longer have any specific connection to or need for that particular machine. If the cobbler becomes an expert in specialty candle marketing, and makes a pile of cash, he no longer has any need to own the Elfbot. He could buy the Dribbler Deluxe instead.
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up.
> That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up. Bullshit. Technology brings down the cost of living by making the supply side more efficient. What goes up is the cost of the way you'd like to live as you have more options to choose from. Obviously there's disruptions along the way (ex: automobiles lessen demand for horse breeders) but when capitalis…
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can start moving toward an education system that works once we agree on some core values. Someone else said that the goal of education is to produce factory workers. I disagree. I think the goal of education is to allow one teacher to effectively babysit up to 30 children at once. With both parents working, it simply isn't possible for them to give kids the attention they need to keep them healty and sane, let alo…
I've rewritten my comment three times so far ... My wife and I are fortunate enough that she can be a stay at home mom. I grew up the same way. Were middle class, though increasingly probably slightly mid to upper these days. We don't need the babysitter, and want our kids to be educated, so that is the focus. We help them with homework, etc. We're lucky. So from my perspective, having both parents working is the roo…
> a massive shift toward automation... in the next five years, 5 million jobs in 15 economies will be lost. (from YC post)
We don't have enough workers. We have too many workers. When will we realize that our current economic system is doing a lousy job of allocating human resources?
We can't get enough teachers, but we have tens of millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars allocated toward things that add, to be generous, questionable value to the world.
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#285You like that fact? Here's another one just like it.
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology provides massive amounts of consumer surplus and deflation. What if we need less money and lower wages are actually fine? Edit: Do the people down-voting this actually think technology doesn't provide consumer surplus and deflation? Or do you have a problem with my question?
I downvoted you. My problem with what you said is that you acknowledged that technology creates surplus, but didn't acknowledge that many of the efficiency gains aren't going to the consumer, but to the owners of the company.
Down vote for trolls and other destructive posts, not just because you have a problem or disagreement with what's expressed. OP is legitimately trying to contribute to the conversation.
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've rewritten my comment three times so far ... My wife and I are fortunate enough that she can be a stay at home mom. I grew up the same way. Were middle class, though increasingly probably slightly mid to upper these days. We don't need the babysitter, and want our kids to be educated, so that is the focus. We help them with homework, etc. We're lucky. So from my perspective, having both parents working is the roo…
> having both parents working is the root issue... resources, time and money, and there is never enough to go around. > a massive shift toward automation... in the next five years, 5 million jobs in 15 economies will be lost. (from YC post) We don't have enough workers. We have too many workers. When will we realize that our current economic system is doing a lousy job of allocating human resources? We can't get enou…
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've rewritten my comment three times so far ... My wife and I are fortunate enough that she can be a stay at home mom. I grew up the same way. Were middle class, though increasingly probably slightly mid to upper these days. We don't need the babysitter, and want our kids to be educated, so that is the focus. We help them with homework, etc. We're lucky. So from my perspective, having both parents working is the roo…
> having both parents working is the root issue... resources, time and money, and there is never enough to go around. > a massive shift toward automation... in the next five years, 5 million jobs in 15 economies will be lost. (from YC post) We don't have enough workers. We have too many workers. When will we realize that our current economic system is doing a lousy job of allocating human resources? We can't get enou…
There is TONS of work that needs to be done though. Teachers like you said, health care workers, psychologists to help us deal with the inevitable mental problems, mountain bike trail maintainers, pickers of plastic trash out of the ocean, people to design apis for distributing government transparency data, designers of infographics to help the rest of us make sense of that data, and on and on and on. There's so much to do, when you stop thinking of a "job" as something provided for you by the government or a company, and rather as value that you can contribute to the world. Another disruptive business is going to figure out how to make it possible to pay people for contributing that kind of value.
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
the question is how much reward is needed Who decides that?
Society. It was society that decided to have the current reward system. It is society that can change its mind.
Re: Request for Startups: News, Jobs, and Democracy
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would count as progress if the automated means of production were owned by the labor that is put out of work. Oh wait, that sounds like communism, and we could never ever have a reasonable discussion about that amongst a group of people who thrive off of a system that is the opposite.
RangerScience, many people, myself included, have. And guess what? We are down-voted. And then our future posts are automatically pro-actively ranked lower (A penalty has been attached to my account. See my history. Do I deserve that?). Politics is discouraged and even banned[1]. HN prides itself as being "a place for civil discussion", but it achieves that through effective suppression of dissent and criticism of SV…
From what I've seen, contrary opinions that are well expressed are rewarded (even if controversial - I've got a few that ultimately got more up votes than down, but it was a ride). Contrary opinions that, well, presume a fight? Not so much.