Live data from Hacker News

China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

nytimes.com

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#61
post #30
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have the workers own the robots I am pretty sure that workers are free to buy publically traded stock. I also would probably not invest if I were in their position.

That was Karl Marx's whole solution. Make the workers own the factories. We have a better way of socializing wealth. It's called the public stock market. Workers can buy shares of any corporation on it, not just their own, and they are protected by regulations. Having said that, I think that we should tax the machines. We are building a cage for ourselves with machines empowering organizations to monitor and control…

We have a better way of socializing wealth. It's called the public stock market. Workers can buy shares of any corporation on it, not just their own, and they are protected by regulations.

This is a good idea in theory, and indeed I've often wondered why unions don't actively invest in the market and use their voting rights to ensure themselves a seat on the board - but my radical idea about the future of unions is another topic.

The problems with the stock market approach are twofold. First, if workers are not paid very much then the extra income they derive from stock ownership, even in the aggregate, is unlikely to make them competitive with existing forces of capital, unless the labor force owns 50% of the company, and even then individual workers are easier to buy out. Second, everyone in the markets faces a principal-agent problem where management involved in the day-to-day running of the company exerts far more power than shareholders because management can shape how shareholders perceive the company and which information they receive, such that it is very easy for managers to get shareholders to do what they want. Sometimes managers go overboard and become subject to criminal charges when they are too blatantly corrupt. In the US that just gets fines and maybe a short stint in jail; in China people can be given the death sentence for corruption, and yet it still occurs, notwithstanding the ongoing anti-corruption campaigns of Xi Jinping's administration.

My point here is not about China in particular, but to suggest that the mere existence of capital markets is by itself insufficient to make capitalist structures responsive to the public interest.

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#62
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism "eating itself" by getting too efficient to continue to provide work for everyone was Marx central thesis for why a socialist revolution would be inevitable, so nothing "neo" about it.

yeah, and having real world socialism with vastly underperforming economy, forcing everybody to have a job, creating pointless jobs to to fill this criteria (and unleashing state terror on those who don't fit in). if you think i'm joking, unfortunately no. had lived in socialist country and i can still see the damage on people 20 years after we switched to democracy. people went to jail if they refused to work. if th…

There has never been a true Socialist society, a book titled "A Great Book" doesnt mean its a great book.

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#63
Martin Ford has one argument to make -- the robots are coming! :( -- and he makes it again and again in any context possible, even when that point is a rhetorical stretch. China has a lot of problems, many of them on a grander scale than any other country because of the size of its population. The robots are no where near the top of the list. The real issue here is that China has succeeded so well at manufacturing that it is no longer the center of low-cost labor that it once was. When wages rise, capital is substituted for labor; i.e. companies rely incrementally more on robots than humans. Not a lot new there.

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#64
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was Karl Marx's whole solution. Make the workers own the factories. We have a better way of socializing wealth. It's called the public stock market. Workers can buy shares of any corporation on it, not just their own, and they are protected by regulations. Having said that, I think that we should tax the machines. We are building a cage for ourselves with machines empowering organizations to monitor and control…

not that i completely disagree with your vision of future, there are many +- lovely fantasy projections out there. but let's get back from utopia to this harsh real world we live in. People like you always point to just things that are wrong with this system (and let's agree on this, there are plenty) and come up with star trekkish almost perfect world where all is nice and super cool, without thinking a bit (or at l…

We already have safety nets - automatic stabilizers, means tested welfare etc.

I say start supplementing them all with a basic income financed by an automation tax. The more automation, the more companies benefiting from it are taxed. They still get to keep 60% of the savings from automation but the other 40% would be taxed, say. The key is redistributing it to EVERYONE. At first it would be very small but it would be help cushion demand shocks in the economy.

We just need this wealth redistribution scheme in place. Have a formula. And on a related note I would have the nation be run by polling, not democracy. Representative democracy is super corrupt and political drama is wasteful. Direct democracy is bad because those who bother to vote can get one over on those who don't. Instead, the government should do randomized polling of the population and report the results, which would be verifiable by independent polling organizations. In fact we could just have publicly accountable polling organizations which make all their results available publicly. Several of these polling organizations would be enough basis for the government bureacrats (eventually replaced by mostly computers) to take the opinion of the public in various issues and just implement them.

How much redistribution should we have? Do polling every year. How much carbon tax? Polling etc. That is a real participatory democracy without the stupid waste of time going to a polling booth. If you want me to vote, GIVE ME AN APP as an option. If it's secure enough for my finances in a bank it's secure enough for my vote in an election. But better yet just do the work for us and POLL the public on what they want.

If you say represenative democracy is able to accomplish more and polls would just vascillate wildly between different positions, then I think you're too married to the current ideology. You can still have the executive branch take a firm direction every few years, or months. That and everything else can be changeable by polls instead of a legislative branch. Polls are better than referendums.

One legitimate fear is that polls can be falsified. That's why we need many independent organizations doing the pollin. Better than one organization doing the vote.

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#65
post #19

> According to one analysis, fully 43 percent of Chinese workers already consider themselves to be overeducated for their current positions. The obvious conclusion is that there should be less education in China.

All that computing power going to waste. IF only there's a way to harness that power, maybe for folding@home or bitcoin mining...

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#66
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism "eating itself" by getting too efficient to continue to provide work for everyone was Marx central thesis for why a socialist revolution would be inevitable, so nothing "neo" about it.

Where did he predict that?

Various aspects of it is addressed throughout most of his works. The Communist Manifesto, chapter 1[1] is probably the easiest accessible, though maybe not the clearest exposition:

"A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. "

[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#67
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism "eating itself" by getting too efficient to continue to provide work for everyone was Marx central thesis for why a socialist revolution would be inevitable, so nothing "neo" about it.

yeah, and having real world socialism with vastly underperforming economy, forcing everybody to have a job, creating pointless jobs to to fill this criteria (and unleashing state terror on those who don't fit in). if you think i'm joking, unfortunately no. had lived in socialist country and i can still see the damage on people 20 years after we switched to democracy. people went to jail if they refused to work. if th…

These regimes were not much more representative of socialism, or Marxism, than North Korea is representative of democracy just because it has "democratic republic" in its name.

They violated the principles they claimed to be built on from day one.

Re: China’s Troubling Robot Revolution

#68
post #17

As I mentioned once before, one can only hope they can figure a way out of this conundrum. Given the relative strength of the central gov't to direct economic policy, perhaps they'll trike upon a solution to automation and software eating jobs and thus people's source of making a living. They are going to hit this economic obstacle on a massive scale first --before the jobs even get to migrate to the interior where t…

> So perhaps the solution is something akin to the Alaska Permanent Fund fund; however, instead of being funded by mineral wealth, gets funded by wealth generated through (hw) automation and efficiencies brought on by software. This fund then gets redistributed based on a combination of need as well as a per-capita flat rate.

As a reasonable proxy for that kind of wealth generation, you can just tax income.

Post reply on HN