Rolling the ladder up behind us • Hacker News Board

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#51

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:12 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #43

asmxyz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are _other options_! You're argument is that the only two alternatives are that the ruling class and owning class be separate groups of people, or the same group of people. And either way the labor class if F'ed. You're right that having the ruling class and the owning class being the _same people_ is terrible. That's what we're living in right now! But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if…

The labor class is free to form collectives and cooperatives. There's no law against it. Bezos started Amazon with $300,000. I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for workers to raise that kind of money, after all, $300,000 to buy a house is considered cheap. On the other hand, the history of businesses being confiscated and handed over to the workers has not been a successful one.

But startups are worker-owned, insofar as the founders are able to profit from it.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#52

Post by mm263 » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #43

asmxyz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are _other options_! You're argument is that the only two alternatives are that the ruling class and owning class be separate groups of people, or the same group of people. And either way the labor class if F'ed. You're right that having the ruling class and the owning class being the _same people_ is terrible. That's what we're living in right now! But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if…

The labor class is free to form collectives and cooperatives. There's no law against it. Bezos started Amazon with $300,000. I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for workers to raise that kind of money, after all, $300,000 to buy a house is considered cheap. On the other hand, the history of businesses being confiscated and handed over to the workers has not been a successful one.

$600,000 after inflation

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#53

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #26

dontlaugh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what the Luddites wanted. They praised the technology itself and recognised it would save a lot of time. But they also recognised that they the workers wouldn’t reap any of those benefits, they’d just lose their jobs. Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? If so, you are incredibly naive.

The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs. When wages are raised by the government, job losses happen. 16,000 to 36,000 people lost their jobs when California raised the minimum wage for fast food workers. > Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? Durin…

> The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs.

Minimum wage is one indicator of critically substandard living. Here is a small sampling of some others:

    well over minimum wage + below the poverty line
    no discernible exits off path to unhoused retirement
    current, recurring or impending homelessness
    food insecurity and recurring hunger
    medically triggered impoverishment
    only possible caregiver for loved one with medical issues

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#54

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #28

WalterBright wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs Of course. That's been going on since the invention of the plow. That's why today we can do more interesting things than turn over the earth with a pointy stick all day every day. > economic democracy, where average people regain control over their lives History shows us that this inevitably means people lose all control over their lives, because the state will m…

That's kind of a silly example, your congressman could write a bill allocating 53% of cars to the two seater lobby and 47% to the four seat lobby.

And what if 62% wanted two seaters?

Back in the 70s, the Department of Energy was tasked with allocating gas to the gas stations. A gas station had to apply for an allocation, and the DoE doled out the gas. The DoE doled out gas based on the previous year's usage patterns.

Sounds smart, right?

What happened is that gas consumption varies year to year due to a number of factors, like weather patterns, population changes, etc. The result was massive misallocation by the DoE - Californian had shortages of gas, Florida had gluts. That sort of situation has never happened before.

All that nonsense disappeared literally overnight when Reagan repealed all gas price and allocation controls with his very first Executive Order. I remember than wonderful day very well - at last I could drive right up to the pump and get gas, rather than wait in line. The gas lines never returned.

What you're suggesting is called "central economic planning". It is constantly tried again and again, and it never ever works. (The failures of it are always classified as "unintended side effects", though they are entirely predictable.)

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#55

Post by Veedrac » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

A defense of the Luddites against sewing machines was honestly not something I expected. Support for the Luddites in general, sure I can predict that, but the claim that sewing machines are bad, exploitative, produce "shitty" cloth, serve only the pursuit of profit...

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#56

Post by 0x1ceb00da » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:15 PM UTC

stego-tech wrote: post #27

paxys wrote: post #22

The part that is always skipped when making the clothing analogy is that for most of human history good clothes were a luxury . At the time of the industrial revolution it was common for a family to spend 15-25% of their annual income just on clothing. A single shirt from that era would cost the equivalent of £2,000 today when considering material and labor. New clothes were something you may be able to afford once a…

> The part that is always skipped when making the clothing analogy is that for most of human history good clothes were a luxury. Literally what OP discusses in their text, right in the first part. Go RTFA . > and they would cater pretty much exclusively to kings and the 0.1% of the time Oh yeah, I totally remember reading about how people in pre-modern civilizations were almost always semi-clad or fully nude due to t…

> Literally what OP discusses in their text, right in the first part

The article says clothing was passed down generations.

> Because clothing was often tailor-made rather than ready-to-wear

What if the father's clothes don't fit the son? Now you have to choose between feeding your cows and buying a shirt.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#57

Post by stego-tech » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:15 PM UTC

kevmo314 wrote: post #38

stego-tech wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not infuriated until there's a better metric. That attitude is the equivalent of a frog in a boiling pot going, "I won't leave until you have a better idea of where to go." Value is - and always will be - subjective . Whenever society forms a centralized definition of value, it is immediately gamed and exploited by those who seek profit and power. Currency and profit are extreme forms of Goodhart's Law, the civ…

That's fair but not a convincing argument if you're seeking to show that the pot is boiling. I don't believe it is and writing off the rebuttal is akin to "well it's boiling, just trust me".

> I don't believe it is and writing off the rebuttal is akin to "well it's boiling, just trust me".

Which would be a fair counter-argument to have if so many of you (and people like you) weren't also trying to drag those of us looking to escape back into the fucking pot.

If you want to sit and boil, fine, but for chrissakes let those of us who wish to try anything other than boiling alive go do that. Your staunch refusal to confront reality is your problem, but your insistence on harming others so you don't have to confront reality should be criminal.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#58

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:19 PM UTC

schmidtleonard wrote: post #10

WalterBright wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs Of course. That's been going on since the invention of the plow. That's why today we can do more interesting things than turn over the earth with a pointy stick all day every day. > economic democracy, where average people regain control over their lives History shows us that this inevitably means people lose all control over their lives, because the state will m…

I have a whole list of things I'd like from my car that the market does not provide because it is more profitable not to. Why do I get the feeling that instead of seeing this as a horror story you would scold me for unreasonable expectations, even though it is the identical mirror form of the horror story you just told?

Mass production reduces costs by standardizing things. But still, car companies offer a wide range of options if you're willing to wait for your order. If Ford doesn't provide what you want, there's GM, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. There's no shortage of variety.

There's also a small cottage industry of people who will make fully custom cars for you. They're pretty expensive, though, as they don't benefit from economies of scale.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#59

Post by stego-tech » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:20 PM UTC

zimzam wrote: post #35

stego-tech wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit motives are a relatively recent phenomenon, though, and are often erroneously cited as analogous to efficiency gains (despite mountains of evidence to the contrary). > Even food is not able to escape this hole: it's not profitable to manually cultivate food anymore if you wanted to do that as a career. Does this not horrify you? That the foundational discipline of humanity - nutrition via hunting, gathering, o…

What are you talking about? Inexpensive food is a boon to society. Cultivating food the 'old fashioned way' is incredibly labor intensive. We now have machines that allow us to cultivate far more food with far less labor. For example, in 1900 corn took 38 hours/acre to plant/cultivate/harvest. In 2000 it took about an hour. The yeild per acre has also improved 3x-5x in that span, so the time per bushel has decreased…

I was directly replying to the poster above me's own arguments in favor of "doing nothing". At no time did I denigrate inexpensive food, only highlighted that their own perspective that food production is unprofitable when it is in fact necessary for every human to survive, should horrify them.

That being said, if you're going to get on your data soapbox and try to tear down an argument I didn't make in the first place, then I will challenge you to "square the circle" between OPs argument that food production is not profitable; the fact 200 million children (and half a billion people globally) are malnourished; and that these stats are somehow acceptable in a world that collectively throws out a billion meals per day.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#60

Post by jack_h » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:21 PM UTC

schmidtleonard wrote: post #21

derektank wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take would be to scold you to start your own company that provides the features you want from your car if it's not already being provided by the marketplace

I'd have more luck petitioning the Central Car Design Committee because > it is more profitable not to ...and if anyone thinks this is ridiculous, I'd ask them if they are for or against repealing all of our current motor vehicle regulations. If "for," they have admitted to being a hopeless libertarian, and if "against," they have acknowledged that important reasonable features can be incompatible with the profit mot…

> I'd have more luck petitioning the Central Car Design Committee because

Highly doubtful. Command economies have far less variety in what they offer. This isn't theoretical either just look at western cars vs Soviet cars. There's this mistaken belief that if the free market can't provide some good then a command economy could, but the reality is that if a free market can't provide a good then the chance that a command economy could is even more doubtful. Command economies tend to be very bad at allocating resources efficiently as outlined by Hayek in "The Use of Knowledge in Society".