The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 11:32 AM UTC

nightski wrote: post #76

candu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Only if you printed money to hand it out. If redistributive, no.

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

#82

Post by switchbak » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 1:16 PM UTC

eruditely wrote: post #62

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…

The super-rich seem much more concerned about the lives of the poor than the poor for each other.

Are you sure about that? I've seen exactly the opposite, that the richer you are (typically), the less empathy you express. Bill Gates being a notable counterexample.

Below a certain threshold, poverty is very damaging on a person, but nonetheless, I've seen many instances of poor people sharing what little they have.

This is all anecdotal of course, but there are studies showing an inverse correlation of wealth to empathy.

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

#83

Post by nine_k » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

raincom wrote: post #78

nine_k wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The funny thing is that I mentioned throwing money off helicopters ironically, but probably it was lost for the downvoters.

I suspect this was Poe's law in action; some of the current fiscal policies are so contrived that it's hard to tell theonion-style sarcasm from the real thing.

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

#84

Post by jes » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #80

jes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Oh, got it. Thank you.

If I don't respect someone very much, they lose the benefits (let's assume there are some) of trading with me, and I lose the benefits (presumably, small, if I don't respect them much) of trading with them.

I think we 1) live in a division-of-labor society, and that we 2) survive best when we trade with each other on a strictly voluntary basis.

So if that's the case, I think that people that are good trading partners want to have the (legitimately earned, based on past performance) respect of other people in the marketplace.

Perhaps the reputation systems we see all around us are evidence of this? ("Please remember to leave positive feedback for me!")

If I am a good judge of character, then someone I don't respect is likely not respected by (many?) other people as well. If our society is in fact based on division-of-labor and trading, then that person is going to have a more difficult time getting by.

Thoughts?

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

#85

Post by maxerickson » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

jes wrote: post #84

maxerickson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Oh, got it. Thank you. If I don't respect someone very much, they lose the benefits (let's assume there are some) of trading with me, and I lose the benefits (presumably, small, if I don't respect them much) of trading with them. I think we 1) live in a division-of-labor society, and that we 2) survive best when we trade with each other on a strictly voluntary basis. So if that's the case, I think that people that ar…

The pretext of the 20 hour work week stated above is that we don't really live in a division of labor society (in the sense that material needs can be met with a fraction of the available labor).

I agree that we tend to pick winners and losers, but I think a lot of the time those decisions are more arbitrary than we think they are (for example, good judges of character might conflate that judgement with appreciation for charisma without realizing it).

In addition to probably being more arbitrary than we think, the winner/loser way of thinking is also self polarizing, rewarding prior success with more success and punishing lack of success.

(Think about a student that gets some bad grades when they are 10. In our system, that might follow them around for decades (they don't get into a private Junior high, they don't get into Harvard...). There's no reason it should follow them into the next year of school.)

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

#86

Post by gfodor » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

siscia wrote: post #79

nightski wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the challenge is we are currently in the middle of a transitionary period towards full automation of "shitty jobs." Basic income is a logical model once those shitty jobs have been commoditized: there is no need for the jobs, and the people who normally would only be qualified for those jobs need to survive somehow.

But we're not there yet, our economy is still reliant upon a large number of people doing "shitty jobs" in order to grow in general, and more specifically to continue this push towards further automation. This is the challenge: you need a way to alleviate human suffering during the transition towards a greater world for everyone, but the most obvious way to do that (basic income) may halt the transition itself. What we probably need is something that looks more like a bridge than a final destination, but any such bridge starts to resemble the experiments in communism that cost the world so much during the 20th century.

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

#87

Post by pjmorris » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 12:20 AM UTC

jes wrote: post #42

pjmorris wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that work, not people, is what is worthy of honor and respect?

I'm saying that productive work is one way in which people can become more worthy of honor and respect. For example, let's say you have two individuals. One gets married, fathers some children, and then decides that rather than supporting his family, he's going to sit around and play video games while his wife works 24x7 to try to take care of the family. Another man, in the same circumstances, gets a job, works hard…

> I'm saying that productive work is one way in which people can become more worthy of honor and respect.

It's not quite that I disagree. I just think that your statement and example don't make an accounting for what honor and respect a person is worthy of independent of their work status. Should a 3 year old, or a 93 year old, only be accorded respect in accordance to how much they work? Should hospital patients receive less honor and respect than hospital staff?

I think human life has value, and is worth of honor and respect, completely independent of the capacity and willingness to work.

Do you see it differently?

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

#88

Post by eruditely » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

switchbak wrote: post #82

eruditely wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The super-rich seem much more concerned about the lives of the poor than the poor for each other.

Are you sure about that? I've seen exactly the opposite, that the richer you are (typically), the less empathy you express. Bill Gates being a notable counterexample. Below a certain threshold, poverty is very damaging on a person, but nonetheless, I've seen many instances of poor people sharing what little they have. This is all anecdotal of course, but there are studies showing an inverse correlation of wealth to e…

Go to a place where there is real poverty and it still holds(like india). White rich people tend to care a lot about every one. I am not white.

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

#89

Post by winter_blue » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 6:21 AM UTC

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #22

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…

Maybe, in the same way that industrial safety regulations violate our freedom to work in whatever environment we want.

Industrial safety regulations impose restrictions on how you may treat others, not on how you may treat yourself.

Those regulations coerce employers into treating their employees well (which is not bad[1]). If you were to privately, in a manner that did not put others at risk, conduct an experiment in your backyard that violated those very safety regulations, I doubt you would get in trouble for it.

[1] It's not as bad a thing for government to regulate how individuals treat each other, as it would be if it regulated (passed laws around) how an individual treated himself/herself.

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

#90

Post by XJOKOLAT » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 7:10 AM UTC

sjtrny wrote: post #69

eruditely wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The super-rich seem much more concerned about the lives of the poor than the poor for each other.

Fair enough, they're too busy being poor to care about anyne else.

standing ovation

However, it's not actually that fair enough. Some of the most generous spirited people I know are "poor".