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

The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

econ.sites.olt.ubc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#61

Post by logicchains »

Johnythree wrote: post #21

Once it was assumed that increased productivity would benefit the whole community, hence the expectation that productivity would lead to higher wages and/or reduced working hours. But that hasn't happened: In the American version of Capitalism, any benefits from increased productivity flow direct to the super rich, leaving the poor and middle-class worse off. Meanwhile, the European semi-socialist model is also rapid…

>increased productivity

Isn't part of the problem that many university degrees don't really provide any such "productivity" increases? Things like communications, postmodern art history and gender studies, while possibly contributing to the intellectual development of students (assuming students don't just spend the whole course drinking), don't really increase students' ability to do or produce anything that other people value enough to pay for.

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#62

Post by eruditely »

Johnythree wrote: post #21

Once it was assumed that increased productivity would benefit the whole community, hence the expectation that productivity would lead to higher wages and/or reduced working hours. But that hasn't happened: In the American version of Capitalism, any benefits from increased productivity flow direct to the super rich, leaving the poor and middle-class worse off. Meanwhile, the European semi-socialist model is also rapid…

The super-rich seem much more concerned about the lives of the poor than the poor for each other.

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#63

Post by kyllo »

logicchains wrote: post #61
Johnythree wrote: post #21

Once it was assumed that increased productivity would benefit the whole community, hence the expectation that productivity would lead to higher wages and/or reduced working hours. But that hasn't happened: In the American version of Capitalism, any benefits from increased productivity flow direct to the super rich, leaving the poor and middle-class worse off. Meanwhile, the European semi-socialist model is also rapid…

>increased productivity Isn't part of the problem that many university degrees don't really provide any such "productivity" increases? Things like communications, postmodern art history and gender studies, while possibly contributing to the intellectual development of students (assuming students don't just spend the whole course drinking), don't really increase students' ability to do or produce anything that other p…

University probably doesn't. Technology sure does.

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#64

Post by candu »

tbrownaw wrote: post #56
raincom wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really feel like we would end up with a country where the majority just live on basic income and do nothing. The people who end up on "basic income" would do something they like to do; but that something is nothing of value to the economic elite of the world. In that sense, they do "nothing".

but that something is nothing of value to the economic elite of the world It has absolutely nothing to do with any "elite". It has to do with being economically visible. If the government pays 300M citizens each $25k annually, that's $7.5T that has to come from somewhere . If you play videogames all day, or turn your back yard into a decorative garden, or anything else you don't get paid for, then you are not contrib…

From [1], we already allocate roughly $6k per person per year in the US, enough to fork over $25k/year to the poorest 20%. (This doesn't account for the potential savings of reduced crime (prisons are expensive!), improved health/nutrition, reduced administrative overhead of replacing all welfare systems with a single basic income, etc.)

Also: not all value is neatly captured on a W-2 form. If turning my backyard into a decorative garden allows me to set a higher sale price for my home later, I've contributed. If I buy groceries so that I can play videogames all day without falling over from hunger, I've contributed. (If I can pay in cash instead of food stamps because I collect a basic income, even better: there's less bureaucracy on the way to collecting tax on my purchases from the grocery store.)

[2] notwithstanding, people who contribute literally nothing to the economy are extremely rare.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud...

[2]: http://www.becomingminimalist.com/the-man-who-quit-money-an-...

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#65

Post by nostrademons »

jes wrote: post #59
nostrademons wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but yes, I see it differently. IMHO, it's none of my business. The division of chores between the man and his wife is between the man and his wife. The reason is because of a quirk of psychology. What you're describing is basically shaming people: making them feel like they are unworthy because of what they do or do not choose to do. And that's a logical response to trying to influence behavior. Except it…

Your reply is helpful to me, to clarify my own thinking. Thank you. Let's continue with the hypothetical that I presented. We have a man who is shirking his responsibility to his wife and to his children. Presumably, his wife did not sign up for the deal she now has when she married him (and if she did, it's on her, then, but I'm assuming she did not) and the children, of course, had no role in the decision making. D…

So yes, in your hypothetical, I think that's a logical train of thought. But it's unfortunate. He will come to consider himself less and less worthy of honor respect, and as a result, he lives up to his deflated estimate, and never gets off the couch.

Here's an alternate reframing. The man considers himself worthy of honor and respect by virtue of his existence as a human being. He takes those attributes off the table. And because he is an honorable and worthy human being, he acts like it. He puts down the video games (or Hacker News), and goes back to writing code and spending time with his family, because that is what allows him to maintain his self-respect. To do otherwise would cause emotional friction, as his self-image is no longer congruent with his actions.

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#66

Post by raincom »

tbrownaw wrote: post #56
raincom wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really feel like we would end up with a country where the majority just live on basic income and do nothing. The people who end up on "basic income" would do something they like to do; but that something is nothing of value to the economic elite of the world. In that sense, they do "nothing".

but that something is nothing of value to the economic elite of the world It has absolutely nothing to do with any "elite". It has to do with being economically visible. If the government pays 300M citizens each $25k annually, that's $7.5T that has to come from somewhere . If you play videogames all day, or turn your back yard into a decorative garden, or anything else you don't get paid for, then you are not contrib…

> Which can kinda be a problem if too many people do that and there's nowhere for it to come from.

This is how the majority understand the macro economics: an extension of bartering system. But a sovereign currency regime does not need to worry about it. What constrains an economy are real resources, but not financial resources. Sovereign debt = public assets. For more, check "Modern Monetary Theory".

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#67

Post by josephkern »

Karunamon wrote: post #28
AngrySkillzz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, in the same way that industrial safety regulations violate our freedom to work in whatever environment we want.

Working without safety regulation is harmful. Working 21 hours is not.

Depends on what union you work for ...

But heck, even pilots can work a 40 hour week (of actual flight time). I am not sure if there is even a hypothetical union that would limit work time to such a degree (My straw man is burning.

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#68

Post by josephkern »

T-A wrote: post #23
uberdeveloper wrote: post #14

Mediocre people are getting pushed out. This is a good thing for the efficiency of the economy.

Until they go after the non-mediocre with pitchforks, torches and guillotines. It's not like history lacks precedents.

If history is a teacher, there is usually a small cadre of non-mediocre people running the show.

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#69

Post by sjtrny »

eruditely wrote: post #62
Johnythree wrote: post #21

Once it was assumed that increased productivity would benefit the whole community, hence the expectation that productivity would lead to higher wages and/or reduced working hours. But that hasn't happened: In the American version of Capitalism, any benefits from increased productivity flow direct to the super rich, leaving the poor and middle-class worse off. Meanwhile, the European semi-socialist model is also rapid…

The super-rich seem much more concerned about the lives of the poor than the poor for each other.

Fair enough, they're too busy being poor to care about anyne else.

Re: The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf]

#70

Post by mahyarm »

greggman wrote: post #37
mahyarm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only works if the fixed costs of a worker (benefits) are negligible at best. If employers need to keep on paying for health care, then it's always cheaper to overwork a worker unless the overtime makes it more expensive. So you need govt. health care for one to get rid of a fixed cost of employees before it becomes feasible for companies. Also a single worker can produce more work until exhaustion effects start…

How does gov health care change this? I pay $500 a year to health ins or $500 a year more in taxes. Either way I pay $500 a year. That's not an argument for or against gov health care I'm just asking for clarification why it matters for your point

Because it's based on a tax % rate vs a fixed cost of $2-5k/yr per employee. So if you want to hire 4 people for 10hrs/wk paying each of them $20/hr instead of 1 person at 40hrs/wk, it's not going to cost the company an extra $6-15k / yr to get equivalent hours of labor to do so.

You need to reduce fixed costs and make them a cost that scales with the amount paid for the labor to make doing this more attractive for companies.

Other benefits are pretty much nothing compared to health insurance, or only cost money when the employees are at the job site, so govt. healthcare is needed before 4 workers at 10 hours a week becomes more attractive to employers.

Walmart & co make their employees work part time just to avoid paying mandatory benefits. Benefits are a big cost to companies.

Post reply on HN