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

Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 541 posts

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#71

Post by baroffoos »

throwawayjava wrote: post #60
toomanybeersies wrote: post #27

The problem is that as a society we believe that people need to work 40 hours a week to survive. We replace people with robots and retain the same output. We are more productive than ever before, yet work the same amount. Physical and uneducated work is being replaced by automation, yet we expect these people replaced by robots to find jobs to survive where there are now none. I don't believe in Universal Basic Incom…

I think a three day weekend with a "day of service" is a much better solution. Working 8 hours a day already leaves enough downtime in my schedule to get bored, but not enough to turn that boredom into something productive. 6 hours would be outright hell. The problem is, the extra two hours don't really provide me with any compelling new opportunities to contribute! That's barely enough time to get at a school and vo…

I'd prefer the shorter days. A 6 hour day would leave more time for daily exercise and cooking healthy food for dinner and lunch the next day. I would probably also feel more relaxed on the weekend to work on personal programming projects.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#72

Post by philwelch »

gotocake wrote: post #57
philwelch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you can solve that problem with robots and technology, too. Revolting mobs of socialists can be dealt with pretty easily. (If you’re going to start threatening murder as the premise of your theory of justice, you’d best make sure your side would actually be the one doing the killing.)

I mean, you can solve that problem with robots and technology, too. Revolting mobs of socialists can be dealt with pretty easily. (If you’re going to start threatening murder as the premise of your theory of justice, you’d best make sure your side would actually be the one doing the killing.) Yeah, that that could never go wrong and backfire horribly. How about we win a war before we decide to design, mass produce, a…

Another repeating and predictable cycle throughout history is that improvements in technology do not take away jobs. If the revolting mob is suddenly incapable of doing productive work due to some sort of AI revolution, it's fallacious to assume that they would be capable of putting anyone against the wall, either.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#73

Post by nicklaf »

twblalock wrote: post #66
nicklaf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or are you suggesting we ban working? Well, with a sufficiently progressive tax, you might choose to stop volunteering your time for what will be diminishing returns in income.

> Well, with a sufficiently progressive tax, you might choose to stop volunteering your time for what will be diminishing returns in income. A solution that incentivizes successful people to hold themselves back from fulfilling their potential is going to make society poorer overall. If you want to redistribute wealth, you should incentivize the creation of wealth so you have enough to move around.

Possibly! I don't know enough about economics to say one way or another.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#74

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

TACIXAT wrote: post #52
jedberg wrote: post #2

There are two solutions: Part one, a more educated populace. Education will help those that can work in the "good jobs" get the good jobs. Part two, tax policy. Wealth needs to be redistributed so that there are masses to buy the products that the wealthy are creating. Edit: I just watched this post go up to 10 points, down to 3 and then back to 5. Clearly this is controversial. I find it interesting that wealth redi…

Isn't wealth redistribution via taxes treating the symptom and not the cause? We should look at the structures that allow massive wealth inequality to form in the first place. This could be a lot of things besides tax policy.

This would seem to lead to a Harrison Bergeron sort of outcome, no? I mean, basic variation in genetic factors, geographic and political circumstances of your birthplace, these things directly lead to variation of productivity, which in turn leads to variation of wealth.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

freehunter wrote: post #23
ipnon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the average IQ of a STEM graduate is a standard deviation or more above average [0][1], then how does a more educated populace result in something besides the stratification we see today? STEM education can help a person get on the right side of the tech split, but the STEM education itself is already prohibitively difficult. [0] https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-... [1] http://www.randal…

Because IQ is not scientifically proven and is inherently flawed.

> Because IQ is not scientifically proven

“IQ is not scientifically proven” is, at best, an incomplete thought. What claim about IQ necessary for the upstream comment’s argument is unproven?

> and is inherently flawed.

It what manner relevant to the reference in the present discussion is IQ “inherently flawed”?

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#76

Post by aphextron »

It is splitting our entire society in two.

There are people who work in the old economy, actually doing things in the world. These people are still "tied to the land" in a sense. Their income isn't high enough to live alone, so they still maintain strong familial and neighborly bonds. Their work is physical (that doesn't mean unskilled or low paid, just that it requires physical manipulation), and requires them to physically be in a specific location at a specific time. For the most part this refers to the interior US, so housing is cheap and they generally don't have too much of a commute; they live and work in the same community. They have pride in a sense of place, and feel that they definitely "belong" somewhere because of this. They pinch pennies, compare prices, and generally are not overly wasteful. They might take a vacation once in a lifetime. These people are not poor, they just know the true meaning of a dollar because they are forced to physically work for it.

Compare this to the newly emerged technologically enabled upper middle class whose lives have become entirely abstracted from their physical existence. Our jobs are remote. Our "worksites" are mental abstractions. Our communities are digital. Our clothes are cheap and meaningless. Our connection to neighbors is nonexistent. Our physical location is arbitrary and changes based on a whim. Weekend vacations to Paris are a thing. We don't acknowledge strangers on the street, and if you do you're the insane weirdo. The result is two completely separate world views. A member of the former class simply cannot comprehend things like $14 sandwiches and $50,000 cars because it offends their sensibilities, not because they don't have the money.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#78

Post by dnbgfher »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #27

The problem is that as a society we believe that people need to work 40 hours a week to survive. We replace people with robots and retain the same output. We are more productive than ever before, yet work the same amount. Physical and uneducated work is being replaced by automation, yet we expect these people replaced by robots to find jobs to survive where there are now none. I don't believe in Universal Basic Incom…

I don't see how this tracks. Particularly in relation to many of the jobs going away, productivity isn't inversely related to hours worked. People working 6 hours instead of 8 will get three quarters as much done. How would their wages go up?

If you are proposing the government cover the difference, then you're effectively proposing a bastardized version of UBI with an employment requirement, and payout that is proportional to current economic advantage. I'm not even sure it wouldn't cost more than current UBI proposals given that proportionality.

I don't understand why you would be in favor of this, but think UBI was bad. Or how it could possibly work, if it wasn't the government paying for it.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#79

Post by erwan »

jedberg wrote: post #2

There are two solutions: Part one, a more educated populace. Education will help those that can work in the "good jobs" get the good jobs. Part two, tax policy. Wealth needs to be redistributed so that there are masses to buy the products that the wealthy are creating. Edit: I just watched this post go up to 10 points, down to 3 and then back to 5. Clearly this is controversial. I find it interesting that wealth redi…

>Wealth needs to be redistributed

It is not a zero-sum game. It would be more productive to facilitate wealth creation rather than devise new ways to forcibly take-away private property that offends you.

Reducing the countless barriers to entry that stunt human ingenuity is where the real fight is. People can learn, and they are already (e.g Make/Lambda School) when provided with cost-effective training that delivers on investment.

Wanting more of the same (tax + regulations) is not going to cut it now. We are past ridiculous levels (1:3 avg OCDE tax:gdp) and diminishing returns kicked in.

Re: Tech Is Splitting the U.S. Work Force in Two

#80

Post by atemerev »

whateveracct wrote: post #43
atemerev wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Redistribution” is inherently unfair; there is no “redistribution” except by force. Venezuela was the most recent in the vast row of examples of how redistribution works; probably not the last, as the idea keeps being pushed by some people for some reason, completely unimaginable to me.

Why is redistribution of wealthy any more unfair than the circumstances that gave rise to it in the first place? Nobody inherently deserves their wealth - it's largely a function of circumstance.

It is my wealth that is going to be “redistributed”. I am a relatively well off software engineer; I was born in a poor family on the outskirts of a Siberian town. I learned to program all on my own, by visiting my friends with computers and taking programming books from the local library. It wasn’t a “function of circumstance” — it was a function of my interest and targeted activity. What is unfair here?
Post reply on HN