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

What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 576 posts

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#511

Post by freehunter »

adwn wrote: post #376
freehunter wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're getting confused on the definition of how the robot accomplishes its task. To clean a toilet like a human would, yeah that's difficult. To clean a toilet like a robot would, it's not. A toilet cleaning robot would have a spinning brush like a drill and would circle the bowl of the toilet a couple of times. Really, really easy thing to do. If a Roomba can clean my entire house, not fall down the stairs,…

> A toilet cleaning robot would have a spinning brush like a drill and would circle the bowl of the toilet a couple of times. But that robot can't refill its consumables, it can't mop up the floor, and it can't deal with the mess after your semi-demented grandpa missed half the bowl. This solution is useful for a large rest stop with a dozen toilettes and thousands of customers per day (and employees that do the abov…

But now you're getting into scope creep. What was asked for was a robot that could clean toilets, or a robot that could make a sandwich.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#512

Post by DougWebb »

stale2002 wrote: post #251
enraged_camel wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years Average wealth doesn't matter. Relative wealth does. The reason is simple: wealth is a proxy for political power. Let's say Bob had 10 dubloons yesterday and Alex had 20, and today Bob has 20 and Alex has 100. Sure, Bob is twice as wealthy as he was, but Alex is five times as wealthy and also five times wealthier than Bob (as opposed to twice). Now repl…

Wealth has nothing to do with gold coins or green pieces of paper. Wealth is about the total amount and quality of goods and services you consume. Your house is of much higher quality than the houses of the 1950s. Just because the mansions are even bigger and better, This doesn't take away the quality of life improvement of you owning a better house or car or your ability to be cured of diseases that were incurable i…

The apartment I'm living in now is in a renovated factory which was built in the 30's. Very solid brick and concrete construction. There's a new apartment building not far from me; they built a two-story concrete structure with a slab on top, and then put a stick-built four-story building on top of that. Wood stud and foam exterior walls, and metal studs and drywall inside. Looks like a firetrap, and the noise from other apartments must be awful.

Before I lived here I was in a single-family house, also built in the 30's, also very sturdy. I've seen other houses being built nearby, McMansion style. They look nice (new, anyway) but they use the same shoddy materials and construction techniques.

Prior to that, I lived in a new condo. I bought it while it was still under construction. (Big mistake.) The builder neglected a few details, like flashing on all of the windows. When it rained, water poured in around my window casings. People on the top floor had their whole ceilings cave in. I managed to get out of there, but a year or two later after the lawsuits the entire brick exterior had to be ripped down to fix the windows, then put back up.

So I disagree that today's houses are "much higher quality" than the houses of the 1950s. An older house, with modern upgrades, is more likely to be high quality than a new house with the same features.

That's all besides the point, because without wealth, without those gold coins and green pieces of paper, you can't afford the nice house, or better car, or the healthcare. Without wealth (in all senses) you don't have financial security, and without financial security you're forced to make decisions about how you use your limited resources. You buy lower-quality goods, you skimp on maintenance, you don't upgrade things, you hold off on preventative care until you need emergency care. Your quality of life is lower, despite having (potential) access to much better things than you might have had in the past.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#513

Post by jimbokun »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #265
jimbokun wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you choose 60s and 50s as comparison points, as many statistics suggest wage increases have been almost nonexistent since the 70s.

increases are fun, but non-increases are better than decreases. Is our economic life worse than the 70s?

Could make a very good case for our economic life today being worse than the 60s.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#514

Post by euyyn »

jokoon wrote: post #393
euyyn wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most jobs are honest and do people a service, you don't even need to look hard or anything. If you want impact, and can write software, there's plenty of well-paid jobs for that in the US; Silicon Valley and elsewhere. That not only lets you contribute taxes instead of living off them, it also helps you be more productive, focused, and impactful. Is teaching a bullshit job? Installing solar panels in people's roofs?…

The former jobs you describe require education or experience, and are in limited supply. Waiting tables means you live on tips. It's not a job you can do for life.

You've never met an older waiter? Even at a McDonald's I've seen people above 50 attending.

To install solar panels you don't need more than a training course, it doesn't require more education than any factory job. Same for cooking.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#515

Post by euyyn »

jokoon wrote: post #391
euyyn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think you have any duty to try not to live off welfare, as long as not many people do it?

Legally, I think no, I don't. Morally? I don't believe in morals.

You don't believe morality exists, or is that a fancy way of saying "I don't have morals?" Because the welfare and healthcare system you are looking forward to live off exists only because of morals.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#516

Post by rubberstamp »

BurningFrog wrote: post #488
rubberstamp wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Micro economics is not science either as people are conscious and adapts(find loopholes) around them whenever its possible to do so.

Got any examples? If we're talking about supply and demand, price elasticity, and things like that, I can't think of any loopholes. Knowing how these things work only makes people make more informed decisions.

Take the pricing of anything. Its greed pricing vs how much greed is tolerated. Take fish for example. In our local market prices basically increase roughly every 2 or 3 weeks. Sellers quote high when they are not desperate for money. They don't care if it doesn't sell. Now they may lie to other sellers that they sold at higher price and then others try their luck at pushing price high. Sales may be down for initial two three days but then people start buying at higher price. Fish supply hasn't changed, cost of catching it haven't changed cost of living didn't change, wages earned by buyers didn't change.

That is pure capitalism at play as it is a free market without government regulations.

Similarly some drugs that are priced at crazy multiples of real cost to produce it(including RnD and healthy profit) by the likes of martin shkreli.

So its basically how much the individuals in an economy values money. When the seller quotes high and I as a buyer has truck load of money, I wouldn't even bother to bargain. When I don't have cash, I try to bargain it to the bottom levels and sellers would probably not even be able to cover their cost.

Pricing that varies over the day in ecommerce websites is another example. Time during which people are more likely to rush into buying, things are priced high.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#517

Post by internaut »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #416
internaut wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't we building down? Each plot owns the land beneath, yes? So build downwards if zoning prohibits building up.

The cost per sq ft is higher. You often hit aquifers. Less light. More difficult egress in an emergency. (Just giving some reasons why building down isn't done more, but it is happening.)

Yes it is happening I know, I remember a 99% Invisible podcast episode talking about it. Also there was a documentary on London millionaires doing it.

I find it striking it is not done even more. I recognize the technical difficulties but the costs are surely lower than the potential value of easily doubling the sq ft.

There are interesting tricks you can do with fibre optic cable and mirrors to send daylight down there. Not to mention CoeLux and similar products.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#518

Post by internaut »

stale2002 wrote: post #450
internaut wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't we building down? Each plot owns the land beneath, yes? So build downwards if zoning prohibits building up.

You don't gain that much by building downward, one or two floors at most, and you also run into other laws. For example, an apartment is required to have a window or fresh air source.

There are technical difficulties but you're doubling the sq ft! That is huge. Have you seen London's iceberg buildings?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLJ0zZQb9x0

I admit I just want this because the idea of hidden labyrinths behind our cities is just intrinsically appealing to me. There could be shops! Neon signs! It would be cyberpunk and then I would know the future has arrived :-)

The monetary payoff does seem to be there. I wonder if the delay in transformations of this sort might have a lot to do with a lack of 3D expertise among builders.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#519

Post by snrplfth »

JamesBarney wrote: post #487
pdonis wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why doesn't all of that work turn into jobs? Because the market that is supposed to match workers with jobs is highly inefficient. There are a number of possible causes of this, but I think a major one is regulation, which greatly increases the cost of hiring a worker. Any market with large transaction costs is going to be inefficient. That's one of those "economics 101" things that many people tend to forget.

Which regulations do you think are the greatest impediment to hiring?

Here's a few examples:

- High implicit labour prices. When you add up all the required costs to hire somebody (minimum wage, healthcare costs, payroll taxes, etc.) it's no surprise that there's going to be some portion of the population which can find no work at that price.

- Unnaturally high costs in the most productive areas. Cities with lots of jobs will naturally have high costs, but a lot of regulations, like zoning law and building codes essentially put a high minimum price on living in particular places. This makes it very hard for people to move to the work.

- Licensing and accreditation. There's tons of jobs (many of them service-sector jobs) that require a license, lots of permits, and often particular kinds of schooling to be able to legally do them.

Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?

#520

Post by witty_username »

joantune wrote: post #476
witty_username wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm.. why not let people vote on worthiness with a point system (money)? That's the current world we live in.

That is a way to do it. However, if you look at it, something like scientific knowledge isn't easily 'bought' by people.. so the 'market' for scientific advancements is skewed, the incentives aren't there. It would have been impossible to have iPhones or the likes without scientific advancement. Yet, the scientific community reaped 0 benefits and got 0% of share from Apple's profit.. and even tax wise, which could be…

There are incentive for some scientific knowledge; that's why companies have R&D labs. One way to increase this incentive would be increase the scope of patents.

Also you can pay for investigative journalism and scientific research.

> tax wise, which could be a way to subsidize scientific grants from the government, we both know that they dodge those and lobby with success for them to not pay them.

The case with EU and Apple hasn't been settled yet.

Post reply on HN