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

If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#81

Post by fixermark »

chongli wrote: post #32
nickthemagicman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the point. Humans rely on jobs, what happens when robots take over?

We don't actually rely on jobs, we just force one another to work to satisfy our principles of fairness. In theory we could agree on a different notion of fairness that doesn't require everybody to work, we just choose not to.

FWIW, I think you may be under-selling "We just choose not to."

Human principles of fairness are based very heavily on social constructs of tribe and group survival that predate civilization by 10^5 to 10^7 years. Human thought is extremely malleable, I think the human psychology jury is still out on precisely how malleable "fairness" is.

That having been said, it feels like if we could start by ratcheting most people from a 40-hour week to a 30-hour week without cutting their pay, that'd square with the gut feeling of fairness. ;)

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#82

Post by moate »

mindcrime wrote: post #69
moate wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that when you have a recently minted, largely unemployed underclass who are not having their basic needs met, you frequently get rebellion. At that point the state's ability to enforce contracts, protect property, and dole out justice becomes severely hampered. The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Marx described the State which is a group built to protect the bourgeoisie. It should (will? could…

The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Marx described the State which is a group built to protect the bourgeoisie. It's funny, I've got a whole pile of books by, and on, Marx, piled up waiting to be read (even though I'm a Libertarian in American terms. "know thy enemy" and all that) but finding time to get to that stuff is always the challenge. I did not realize that Marx described the State as such. That is a…

The basics of the most Marxism and Conflict Theory are that 1- There is an imbalance in the availability of goods/services relative to needs/desires (capitalists call this "supply and demand"). 2- Society is built in such a way that those bourgeoisie are rewarded unfairly for their contribution (ownership and capital) relative to the contributions of the proletariat(physical creation of goods, performance of service) 3- The current state exists in ways that allow for that status quo to continue, through the very existence of a "State Class" (politicians) who act on behalf of the Owner Class but create the illusion of a second group acting against the workers thus dividing their attention

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#83

Post by rootusrootus »

trendia wrote: post #44
rootusrootus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, it would require significantly increasing tax revenue to pay for it.

To get everyone up to the poverty line and not have to cut government projects, you'd have to triple tax revenue. Since the average tax burden for those making $500k+ is around 30% already, that would effectively mean taxing them at 90%. I don't think it's politically feasible.

I know enough to know that I don't know nearly enough about economics to say if it's fiscally feasible, my gut says probably so but I can't imagine how such a thing would even be modeled. I 100% agree it is not politically feasible. Even the poor folks in America think that employment is a moral issue and being poor is a reflection on your value to society.

I benefit from lack of competition in my field leading to significantly higher-than-average compensation, but I have to say that I'm intrigued by the idea of giving everyone the freedom to find something to do which meets their aptitude rather than wasting what might be a lot of really smart, capable people, or artists, etc, who have to piss away precious hours of their possibly productive time flipping burgers or something else equally valueless. It may not fit well into our current "meritocracy" ideal but I wonder if we wouldn't build a much better world if we upended our existing incentives a bit. Enough money for everyone to survive (with roommates and such) but little enough that there remains an incentive to go earn more.

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#84

Post by sp332 »

trendia wrote: post #44
rootusrootus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, it would require significantly increasing tax revenue to pay for it.

To get everyone up to the poverty line and not have to cut government projects, you'd have to triple tax revenue. Since the average tax burden for those making $500k+ is around 30% already, that would effectively mean taxing them at 90%. I don't think it's politically feasible.

You're only looking at personal income taxes. Payroll taxes account for about 2/3 as much government revenue and are currently one of the most regressive tax types. Removing the limits on maximum taxable earnings could bring in a lot more money.

And the other side of this is to try to bring down costs. Hopefully a basic income will encourage more regular doctor visits and fewer expensive emergencies. We should also be able to reduce some kinds of welfare spending if food and rent are being paid from the new basic income. And there are already plans underway to increase availability of cheaper housing.

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#85

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dqpb wrote: post #79
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #73

Don't think of "employing" people, of making sure people have jobs. Instead, think of a society "spending" people. We used to spend most of our people growing food. Then we got tractors and combines, and we could spend only 2% of our people growing food. We spent the newly-available people on factories - some to make tractors and combines, but more to make cars and dishwashers and tons of other things. It was an over…

This is a great way of thinking about the problem. And it's not hard to think of better jobs for people. There are a lot of unsolved problems in fundamental research across all fields of science.

True. But unfortunately, not all people laid off from factories are qualified to do fundamental research...

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#87

Post by wuliwong »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #20
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d also remove the way for lots of people to make a living. The unemployed only know that making a living in a lousy industry is better than not making any living at all.

That's exactly the point. Humans rely on jobs, what happens when robots take over?

I do not believe we are at a special tipping point in this history of automation in the economy. Automation has been removing certain jobs from the economy for thousands of years. All-in-all (certainly in the 20-21st century in the US at least) unemployment has ebbed and flowed. When automation occurs in an industry it generally allows for greater production and cheaper products which raises the standard of living of everyone. There are many new jobs that exist today that didn't exist 100 years ago or at least were in very small number. Here's a nice podcast on the topic https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-3-i-want-the-rob... :)

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#88

Post by blablabla007 »

petermcneeley wrote: post #62
trendia wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My post is describing why minimum income would not result in everyone getting $50,000 a year.

Not that I would advocate for such extreme lack of incentives but US gdp per cap is over 50k. Doesnt this mean that you could in theory give everyone 50k?

Government nationalizing everything? I hear it is working really well in North Korea.

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#89

Post by abathur »

fixermark wrote: post #81
chongli wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually rely on jobs, we just force one another to work to satisfy our principles of fairness. In theory we could agree on a different notion of fairness that doesn't require everybody to work, we just choose not to.

FWIW, I think you may be under-selling "We just choose not to." Human principles of fairness are based very heavily on social constructs of tribe and group survival that predate civilization by 10^5 to 10^7 years. Human thought is extremely malleable, I think the human psychology jury is still out on precisely how malleable "fairness" is. That having been said, it feels like if we could start by ratcheting most peopl…

I agree that fairness will pose some short-run concerns. But, consider that it probably didn't make sense to early hunter-gatherers to work themselves to an early death in order to accumulate or bequeath hoards of any of the materials (raw or processed) or tools at their disposal. It seems certain they still had a sense of fairness, which suggests the triggers of that gut feeling are themselves quite malleable.

One legacy of agricultural and industrial production has been the devaluing of just about all "non-productive" activity. A broad re-valuation of what we spend our time on might be a good place to start re-calibrating our sense of fairness.

Re: If the Robots Come for Our Jobs, What Should the Government Do?

#90

Post by pravinva »

How are automaton owning plutocrats supposed to get rich if they don't sell their robot made wares to the plebs? It's silly to think that automation makes the poor poorer. It makes them richer. Only logical conclusion is that stuff will be cheap enough that real wages go up even if nominal ones dont.Look at any rich country, it's got an order of magnitude more automation than any poorer country and yet it's not the country with less automation that is better off. Why do barbers in rich countries earn more than those in poorer countries for essentially the exact skills? Baumol's disease anyone? Luddites need to think through this harder.

PS: if the evil robot owners produce stuff and keep it for themselves without selling them, the rest of the world still has needs that are unmet and we end up in exactly the world we have today

Post reply on HN