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

Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#81

Post by baursak »

ddnb wrote: post #8

An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated. If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?

Basic income has become a buzzword, with different people having different understanding about what it really means. Even right-wing libertarians seem to be in favor of basic income if it means replacing all other forms of social safety net, like welfare, disability benefits, etc.

The more you think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. Should a disabled veteran receive the same amount of basic income as a billionaire heir? Should a single mother of three working at Walmart receive the same total basic income as three Google employees?

A well managed welfare state is a much better option than basic income, in my opinion.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#82

Post by conanbatt »

js8 wrote: post #74
conanbatt wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an entire field of study about this, with maybe millions of students. Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, et…

> A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. But I don't want an explanation of that fact, I have my own. I want an explanation, why some people (who are actually not in the management) think it is right. It is a moral question, not factual one.

As this conversation goes, its nature, it lacks any concept of morality. Why is a rock a rock is not a moral question, and it doesn't merit one in my opinion.

I think you have to reveal what is the moral question you have about preventing that natural result, and I can try to answer why such a thing doesn't bother me at all.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#84

Post by jules »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #80
jules wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.

Why does it have to be either socialism or capitalism? What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better... I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit e…

> What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better...

There is nothing stopping this from happening. You can start such a company now. Heck, you can start a communist commune within a free market system. It doesn't happen much because it doesn't work well enough. The classic corporate structure is far more common because it works.

Even if you took all the shares from the shareholders of an existing company and gave them to the employees you'd revert to inequality soon enough. How much are the new cashiers at Winco foods worth? How many of the old Winco foods employees are still rich? How many of the ones who got rich and stayed rich are still working as a cashier? How big is Winco foods compared to Walmart? Most people who have a million dollars don't want to work as a cashier, a few counterexamples notwithstanding. The basic principle of making employees invested in the success of the company is a good one, but the government shouldn't force that model. Let businesses apply that model where they think it works. Google gives stock to employees, great! Company X doesn't, also great.

> I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education

I agree, the government should finance this for people who can't afford it, but the government should not be running the hospitals or the schools for the same reason that the government should finance food for people who can't afford it, but they shouldn't run the supermarket.

> -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.

Why? The all-volunteer military works well. Compensate people for the job instead of forcing them to do it.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#85

Post by jules »

baursak wrote: post #75
jules wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.

Communism does not imply totalitarianism, and capitalism does not imply democracy.

Give one example of a communist country that didn't turn totalitarian. Capitalism doesn't imply democracy, but capitalist dictatorships do tend to gravitate in that direction, e.g. Chile.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#86

Post by jules »

maxxxxx wrote: post #59
jules wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.

You could also take a look at Europe or the US in the 50s. More income distribution than the current state doesn't mean that Stalin's successors will take over immediately.

Europe or the US in the 50s didn't guarantee the necessities for people who choose not to work either. I'm not even necessarily opposed to flattening the income distribution by government intervention, but guaranteeing all the necessities is a radical change. Let's try it on a small scale first.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#87

Post by jstanley »

ralmidani wrote: post #43
jstanley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way a post-scarcity society could come to exist is if we stop doing any activity in the physical world and everything moves online. We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped. Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, the…

People also like to get married, have families, socialize, play sports, go to nice restaurants, attend shows, etc. Your vision also assumes every human wants to, or can, be a knowledge worker. A lot of people can only function as manual laborers.

Those things are true now, but I don't think it'll take too many generations for what I described to be considered totally normal.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#88

Post by maxxxxx »

jules wrote: post #85
baursak wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism does not imply totalitarianism, and capitalism does not imply democracy.

Give one example of a communist country that didn't turn totalitarian. Capitalism doesn't imply democracy, but capitalist dictatorships do tend to gravitate in that direction, e.g. Chile.

My point was that making changes to the current system doesn't necessarily mean communism. Capitalism or market economies can have many different shapes without becoming dictatorships.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#89

Post by js8 »

conanbatt wrote: post #82
js8 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. But I don't want an explanation of that fact, I have my own. I want an explanation, why some people (who are actually not in the management) think it is right. It is a moral question, not factual one.

As this conversation goes, its nature, it lacks any concept of morality. Why is a rock a rock is not a moral question, and it doesn't merit one in my opinion. I think you have to reveal what is the moral question you have about preventing that natural result, and I can try to answer why such a thing doesn't bother me at all.

The OP asked: "Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why"

You responded: "In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command."

I asked: "why do you think this is the case"

And I got the pretty much textbook economics reply. But I am not asking about what economists think, I wonder about what you think. Why do you, personally, think the work of the manager is more valuable? So I was wondering how you understand the value.

Based on your response, you seem to value scarcity of either positions or suitable candidates. So do you think the president should have the highest salary? There is only one. I am also not convinced that scarcity itself is "providing value".

Post reply on HN