We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation • Hacker News Board

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#51

Post by BearGoesChirp » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 12:48 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #35

daliwali wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the unemployment rate is a lie. It is denominated by the "labor force", which, if one excludes those who are no longer seeking work or chronically unemployed, it's basically being dishonest with statistics. One does not have to feign ignorance as to why there is a disconnect between the statistics and the reality.

It's not a lie, it's a technical measure that people misinterpret. If it was a lie you'd expect suppression of the further data. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Why would we expect such? The best lies are the ones that provide deniability, have enough truth to satisfy some, and yet mislead to the extent desired.

Creating a measurement that gets blasted on the front page of news that is largely misinterpreted, while keeping the actual figures out of public view enough so that only a small fraction of the population sees it seems to not be too different from a lie.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#52

Post by daliwali » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:00 PM UTC

bsmith wrote: post #9

I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet the demand. Based on the arguments in the article, this can only be a temporary fix; eventually automation will take over too many jobs for every person to have one—or at the very least, human labor is a commodity that eventually becomes so cheap that the labore…

>does being born make you worthy of survival?

Does the world owe you a living? Most would answer "no".

Civilization is often in direct opposition to nature, which is cruel and unforgiving. A civilization in collapse will revert to natural selection, in which the fittest survive and reproduce.

I believe that we are witnessing the breakdown of the social contract as the atomic unit of society shifts from the family to the individual. Atomized individuals are much more vulnerable, and replacing the family with the state will further alienate people. Entire novels have expounded on this idea.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#53

Post by contingencies » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:02 PM UTC

itchyjunk wrote: post #5

I think i've read one too many articles on the "oh no, the robots will flip our burgers. Let's make burgers that's unflippable by robots so we can keep doing it." Even people who don't mind working, maybe loves working will be okay with automating things and moving on. They will have other things in their hobby list/ bucket list/ garage that they have been meaning to work on. I understand these articles are still nee…

As someone automating noodle production, I feel compelled to respond to your automated burger flipping comment.

In about 2009 I went to Europe's largest craft fair, held near Aylesbury just outside of London. There were many people there practicing woodwork with traditional hand tools (some of which they had made themselves), metalwork with traditional hand tools, pottery with hands. It was very quaint. I bought nothing but thought the people and processes were very interesting.

I think that's basically how manually building anything will look in the future - quaint, perhaps a sign of eccentricity and questionable priorities, but respectable in its own right as a pursuit - if you have the luxury of time to follow it up.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#54

Post by jmmcd » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:05 PM UTC

> UBI reduces the incentive to work, and risks stranding millions of people in a subsistence living trap, able to just about get by, but cut off from the opportunity for upward mobility, as this essay details well.

The claim is prima facie false, so I looked at the source provided ("this essay" is [1]) and it doesn't support that claim AT ALL.

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601499/basic-income-a-sel...

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#55

Post by socmag » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:06 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #29

socmag wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but it isn't quite so black and white. 6 men owning as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the planet doesn't actually mean much while ever they aren't keeping their money under the bed away from everyone else - it's still in distribution. They still go to sleep at night, get up in a morning, have a shower and grab a cup of coffee then go to the bathroom, eat dinner, watch a mov…

> on the other hand, that six individuals have the power to control how their money is distributed is a very real problem, but the wealth itself isn't. I wouldn't say the wealth is the problem, but wealth inequality is. Our current system allows for a few people to make millions of dollars a day while others can't even get jobs or afford a house. A certain amount of inequality is required to incentivize high performe…

Again, I get where you are coming from, but then there is this:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hU7LNS3S3F0/UgQM8LZeTuI/A...

It shows Shanghai in 1987 vs 2013

From a humanist angle, those buildings are outrageous monstrosities and monuments to human egos. However, they were built from wealth generation that probably gave farmers in paddy fields the opportunity to be elevated out of relative poverty to positions where they could gain an education and likely some are now right here with us on HN.

Likely it was all paid for by your average WalMart / Apple / Amazon shopper.

A deeper question is if we feel this is money well spent, and skyscrapers as legacies certainly didn't start in China and are quite prevalent in the West as well.

Taxing the hell out of frivolous luxury goods might be a jolly good start but dunno if that's going to fly anytime soon because even that is a subjective call at best.

Boo, tricky stuff :/

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#56

Post by TheAdamAndChe » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:13 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #49

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that this is a rising tide that will lift all boats. What I'm afraid of is that the world will be split into capital owners who own all the robots, and the perpetually poor, who can't get jobs because they've all been automated and the only jobs remaining are minimum wage "service" jobs. And that's assuming there will be enough service jobs to go around. We're already seeing this split occur in USA. T…

The middle class is basically gone at this point, and the majority of people are either upper-middle class or lower class. This is only true if you have some bizarre definitions that you're using. The decline of the middle class has been a few percentage points. It's certainly not "gone". More than 50% of households in America make $25-100k. That's solidly middle-class. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_U…

$25k is really not middle class, especially in cities with higher COL.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#57

Post by socmag » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:14 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #46

golergka wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the current amount of inequality is obscene Can you back this opinion up with some arguments?

I'm arguing that inequality at the moment is obscene. Here[1][2][3][4] are some sources backing up my claim. Basically, inequality is massive and accelerating. It's hurting the lower and middle classes to the point that small business creation is slowing down a lot[5]. Seeing how a lot of people are employed in small businesses(49% of private sector workforce[6]), it's acting as a real drag on our economy, keeping wa…

There is no doubt that there is inequality and that inequality is accelerating, especially in the US and West.

What's the global picture look like? I mean we do want our fellow humans to do well too, right?

Maybe not spending so many $$$ on things that go boom might be a good start and instead bomb places with broadband connections, social media, las-vegas strip clubs and NetFlix.

At least that would generate US jobs and still be educational and to all our benefits to some degree.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#58

Post by deelowe » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:15 PM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #37

deelowe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. What do we do during the transition while millions of blue collar workers take to blaming brown people for job losses? EDIT - seems I could have done a better job with the satire here. There have been several reports that Donald Trump's Mexican wall is misguided and that the major driver of job losses these days is increased effeciency due to automation.

Yes, Democratic Party, please keep insulting working-class American citizens by calling them vile names. The Republican Party will be happy to receive their votes.

First, I'm a conservative though I lean heavily towards libertarian. That said, who called anyone names? Would you have felt more comfortable with my statement if I had substituted xenophobia for brown people? I don't think racism is as huge a factor as simple scapegoating and opportunism by politicians. The public is being misled and comments like the parent's ignore the very real impact automation is having on society.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#59

Post by adynatos » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:16 PM UTC

"There’s been downward pressure on jobs since the Industrial Revolution due to leaps in productivity brought about by human ingenuity and lucky discoveries." [citation needed] there were never more jobs

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#60

Post by TheAdamAndChe » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 1:26 PM UTC

socmag wrote: post #55

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on the other hand, that six individuals have the power to control how their money is distributed is a very real problem, but the wealth itself isn't. I wouldn't say the wealth is the problem, but wealth inequality is. Our current system allows for a few people to make millions of dollars a day while others can't even get jobs or afford a house. A certain amount of inequality is required to incentivize high performe…

Again, I get where you are coming from, but then there is this: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hU7LNS3S3F0/UgQM8LZeTuI/A... It shows Shanghai in 1987 vs 2013 From a humanist angle, those buildings are outrageous monstrosities and monuments to human egos. However, they were built from wealth generation that probably gave farmers in paddy fields the opportunity to be elevated out of relative poverty to positions wh…

China has been aggressively industrializing since the 70's and their work is paying off, while America has been aggressively deindustrializing, shipping all the work overseas, gutting the middle class, all so the upper class can benefit from the cheaper labor. The global economy means nothing to me when I can't get a job.

If globalization doesn't help everyone of a country, it will lead to widespread disdain for globalization and eventually the reversal of the policies. If globalization is so important to create a more prosperous world, then we need to find a more sustainable way of doing it.