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

71–80 of 92 posts

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

#71

Post by nine_k »

raincom wrote: post #66
tbrownaw wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

That is, printing more money is the way? Quantitative easing, as they now call it.

I also heard throwing money from helicopters is beneficial, too.

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

#72

Post by zaroth »

nightski wrote: post #40
winter_blue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Enact a 20-hour work week "Enact" implies the government restricting everyone to working 20 hours per week. That's a violation of our freedom to work as many hours as we want. I do support you in that all of people shouldn't have to work in order to meet the basic needs of life today (food, housing, and connectivity). Agricultural and industrial efficiency and automization has advanced to a point where we can provi…

I just can't get behind basic income. It makes sense from a very self-motivated individual's point of view (which many/most on HN are) but if you look at the majority of the country in my opinion most people are not driven this way. I really feel like we would end up with a country where the majority just live on basic income and do nothing. At least now they must contribute to society on a basic level to earn an inc…

I think the problem is that what we have now is much worse. Today we pay people to not work, as in quite literally by earning less you can take home more. Plus, if you don't work, then you can do all sorts of other productive (cost reducing) things with your time, and you also don't carry all the associated non-deductible costs of working.

The slope of progressive taxes and regressive subsidies is bewilderingly high. Particularly if you have higher health care expenses or anything which might be considered a disability, the first $90k of gross earnings for a family of 4 is almost entirely going to the State & Fed.*

As more people "catch on" to the math we see more people dropping out of the labor pool. The story in the media is it's because people have given up on finding work. But I think a significant portion of it is because it's simply not worth working. Not everyone has figured out yet how much the Fed will pay you to not work, but when you do the math I think every middle-class worker should be very angry about it.

Now I'm not sure we want to have a system where everyone is paid exactly the same amount no matter what, but I'm pretty sure that a system which pays less as you pay more taxes is broken.

* If you take the total market value of all subsidies available to a family of 4 earning nothing, and add in the all-inclusive taxes paid as a result of a family of 4 earning $90k (at about which point subsidies have gone to zero), together those numbers will add to about $90k.

If we get more technical, the numbers are actually shifted up by about $30k, because of the standard exemption and child tax credits, the first $30k of income doesn't count. So really it's $30k - $120k where you're effectively working for the Fed.

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

#73

Post by rpcope1 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #41
cubano wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, "mediocre people" make up approx. 66% of the workforce. We are supposed to celebrate their inability to make a living?

I thought "mediocre" was the middle one third, rather than the middle two thirds? ;)

Not sure if you're kidding, but GP is referring to area of the one-sigma region around mean for a normal distribution (see: bell curve) in relation to the total area (68ish percent of total), which is usually where the "normal" people live. It seems the popular understanding in soft sciences is that distribution of talent/ability/other human metric seems to follow a normal distribution.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

leereeves wrote: post #27
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…

That's the view from the US and Europe, but the lives (or at least the incomes and energy consumption) of the poor in developing economies are improving. Perhaps the benefits of increased productivity in the developed world are simply being counter balanced by increased global competition and an equalization of lifestyles.

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by tensorproduct »

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…

That 7.5T in payouts doesn't just disappear from the economy. Most people will put almost all of that payment right back into the economic equation through consumerism. In most models the basic income would be pretty close to the cost of living, and (this is strongly speculative) savings would drop to near-zero if people are less concerned about where their next paycheck is coming from.

A huge proportion of the welfare will is spent right away on consumption of necessities (food, rent) which goes right back into the economy. Specifically, it becomes revenue for business owners.

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

#76

Post by nightski »

candu wrote: post #64
tbrownaw wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

If you hand out money to everyone, wouldn't prices just go up?

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

#77

Post by nightski »

siscia wrote: post #58
nightski wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a large difference between doing nothing, and doing nothing of value to society. For example, I love to learn. I could spend ages reading books and learning as much as possible for my meager brain to understand about physics and it would be very fulfilling. But unless I apply that knowledge, it really wasn't of much value to anyone (even myself, depending on how you look at it). So why do I deserve to take a…

Ok, I see, but after you spend 5 years of your life learning you will be able to do a lot of thing. Now, why should you start doing something different from learning ? Maybe because if you do something productive you will product value that will let you to live in a better house, or to learn more... The point is not to let everybody doing nothing of productive, the point is to give to everybody the choice, between do…

I have been surprised over and over again at the powerful force that is doing "just enough" to get by. So many people are affected by it. It's really quite impressive.

You know those bars you go to? Restaurants? Theatres? The list goes on. No one would work at those shitty jobs any more. Because 25k is comfortable - why would I work at a shitty job for another few thousand?

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

#78

Post by raincom »

nine_k wrote: post #71
raincom wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

That is, printing more money is the way? Quantitative easing, as they now call it. I also heard throwing money from helicopters is beneficial, too.

Well, thats what mainstream (neo Keynsians) have advised and has not worked. Quantitaive easing just shuffles financial assets.

What is needed, is a fiscal policy--and this leads to basic income, basic employment. The only constraints are "real" resources.

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

#79

Post by siscia »

nightski wrote: post #77
siscia wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I see, but after you spend 5 years of your life learning you will be able to do a lot of thing. Now, why should you start doing something different from learning ? Maybe because if you do something productive you will product value that will let you to live in a better house, or to learn more... The point is not to let everybody doing nothing of productive, the point is to give to everybody the choice, between do…

I have been surprised over and over again at the powerful force that is doing "just enough" to get by. So many people are affected by it. It's really quite impressive. You know those bars you go to? Restaurants? Theatres? The list goes on. No one would work at those shitty jobs any more. Because 25k is comfortable - why would I work at a shitty job for another few thousand?

You definitely get a point.

However, in my opinion, the point is that nobody should work at such "shitty jobs", who enjoy being a waiter, will be one in some high end restaurant where he will compensate in an extremely honest way.

The introduction of basic income will need a complete mental switch.

We can dream about robot that serve us, or we can start to realize that the quicker way would be to change mentality and stop to need somebody (or something) that serve us.

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

#80

Post by maxerickson »

jes wrote: post #60
maxerickson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the value of your honor and respect? I realize that sounds pretty dismissive, that isn't what I'm getting at. I'm asking a serious question about why you are framing the discussion in that way.

I don't mean to be dense, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I take you at your word when you say you don't mean to be dismissive. I'm framing the discussion the way I am because of how I see the issues raised in the comment to which I initially replied. Perhaps we are using different definitions for some of the terms that were used? How would you frame the discussion? I will try to respond to that if you w…

It's just a literal question. Say you don't respect someone very much. What harm does that do to them? Say you respect someone a great deal, what good does that do them?
Post reply on HN