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

Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

evonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 186 posts

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#91

Post by spaced-out »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #50
neilwilson wrote: post #14

The problem is fairly simple. The actual output of society is produced by a relatively small minority of skilled individuals that are not easily replicable (ie fungibility is largely a myth). We need those people to work a full week operating the machines that actually make all the output we all consume. But why should they do that if nobody else is working? They could just make enough for the small set of people tha…

> The actual output of society is produced by a relatively small minority of skilled individuals that are not easily replicable This speaks personally to me as why tech workers (and multi-generation urbanites) are seen as widely disconnected: being persuaded a small number of people "create value" while forgetting about the people building your stuff, growing your food, extracting your oil (and killing the planet in…

>forgetting about the people building your stuff, growing your food, extracting your oil (and killing the planet in the process), moving your stuff around, nursing people, building your house, installing your AC, shipping your amazon packages,

What do you mean "forgetting"? I pay those people for their services out of the money I earn. They're not doing all those things out of the goodness of their hearts, they working for the same reason I'm working, for a paycheck.

>and all the other ultra-necessary jobs (that are usually underpaid)

Their pay, just like my pay, is set by the market. If you don't think that's fair, your issue is with capitalism. I'm actually open to the idea of moving away from capitalism, but very few people, especially in the US, are, and I have no expectation that will change in my lifetime.

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#92

Post by qrian »

Avshalom wrote: post #59
throwayEngineer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because making the tech that is safe and reliable enough for technician's to use is the hard part. I can teach anyone how to clean a mold. I can't teach just anyone how to design a mold. And if you designed a mold before, you have been stressed AF designing and reviewing it. For some reason that is disconnected? I still work 40+ hrs

the appearance of disconnect thatfrenchguy is talking about is the idea that designing the mold is the actual output of society despite the fact that designing the mold no matter how few people can do it is completely useless without a massive web of interconnected labor that, yes anyone can do but, must done in order for society to actually output anything. It's not a swipe at engineers, it's a swipe at engineers wh…

Not trying to critique anything, but it seems like engine itself is also useless without the rest of the parts.

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#93

Post by pm90 »

Avshalom wrote: post #82
someguydave wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That fails to respond to the point that there exists skilled necessary work that armies of unskilled workers can not replace.

And there exists unskilled necessary work that armies of skilled workers can not replace. But even beyond that there's armies of skilled necessary work that skilled workers can not replace either but seem to forget exist. Apple doesn't exist without massive sophisticated logistical support but no one ever points out that the naval architects at Maersk or the welders at their shipyards are one piece of the process tha…

This is a very good comment.

Some people like to do more repeatable tasks while others like to do more creative tasks and others don't want to do any tasks at all. We are told that one is better or more required than the other. If we can make a society where people can do what they want to while continuing to have a decent life (whatever "decent" means), its all good.

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#94

Post by totablebanjo »

dvtrn wrote: post #86
cleandreams wrote: post #76

I live in SF and I have been in and out of the tech industry, so I know the city from both perspectives. (I now work at one of the big tech companies.) So many people outside of the industry work more than one job. They need to. Wages are too low. That is the problem, wages. Focus on that, economists, so ordinary people can get by on one job's wages.

Wish there were more comments about this. Like you, I too worked in an industry that wasn’t technology (home repair services, carpenters, electricians and plumbers), and saw it for what it was. It’s atrocious what some of these people are asked to do and the wages they’re expected to perform at. But beyond that, even wages aren’t even the entire picture. I live in Chicago. I managed a fleet of workers who not only ha…

Labor’s been screwed the last 50 years. What kind of six figures are we talking, mid?

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#95

Post by jp555 »

Avshalom wrote: post #59
throwayEngineer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because making the tech that is safe and reliable enough for technician's to use is the hard part. I can teach anyone how to clean a mold. I can't teach just anyone how to design a mold. And if you designed a mold before, you have been stressed AF designing and reviewing it. For some reason that is disconnected? I still work 40+ hrs

the appearance of disconnect thatfrenchguy is talking about is the idea that designing the mold is the actual output of society despite the fact that designing the mold no matter how few people can do it is completely useless without a massive web of interconnected labor that, yes anyone can do but, must done in order for society to actually output anything. It's not a swipe at engineers, it's a swipe at engineers wh…

So if you get a degree, it’s really the book publishers, librarians, and coal burning electricity plant that kept the lights on who deserve most of the credit?

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#96

Post by pm90 »

brighter2morrow wrote: post #39
neilwilson wrote: post #14

The problem is fairly simple. The actual output of society is produced by a relatively small minority of skilled individuals that are not easily replicable (ie fungibility is largely a myth). We need those people to work a full week operating the machines that actually make all the output we all consume. But why should they do that if nobody else is working? They could just make enough for the small set of people tha…

This is very interesting way to view it, but in my office there's a few people who do literally nothing and honestly I would like work more if they didn't have to be there.

I didn't truly understand how powerfully demotivating bad coworkers can be until I actually experienced them.

Good coworkers are encouraged and inspired when you do great work, or create automation that saves time and do more. Bad coworkers get jealous and feel threatened. if you're the kind of person who generally like to avoid conflict (most geeks fit this category), that alone is a powerful de-motivator .

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#97

Post by Avshalom »

jp555 wrote: post #95
Avshalom wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the appearance of disconnect thatfrenchguy is talking about is the idea that designing the mold is the actual output of society despite the fact that designing the mold no matter how few people can do it is completely useless without a massive web of interconnected labor that, yes anyone can do but, must done in order for society to actually output anything. It's not a swipe at engineers, it's a swipe at engineers wh…

So if you get a degree, it’s really the book publishers, librarians, and coal burning electricity plant that kept the lights on who deserve most of the credit?

Their contribution was necessary, I mean it's utterly facile but: you weren't gonna get a degree from a university if the university doesn't exist. There's a billion or so people in addition to them and a few billion more that got us to this point.

It's not that there is no such thing as individual achievement it's that there is no "small minority" skilled or unskilled that the modern economy can be reduced to.

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#98

Post by TomMckenny »

In principle from a capital stand point, it is always better to have one unemployed person and one over worked person who is terrified of becoming unemployed than two employed people. So reducing workload to increase employment rates is completely unacceptable to those who own society.

Wage presure from near full employment is also undesireable to them but must be considered the lesser of two evils and is fairly fudge-able by changing the definition of employed.

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#99

Post by Proven »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #42
neilwilson wrote: post #14

The problem is fairly simple. The actual output of society is produced by a relatively small minority of skilled individuals that are not easily replicable (ie fungibility is largely a myth). We need those people to work a full week operating the machines that actually make all the output we all consume. But why should they do that if nobody else is working? They could just make enough for the small set of people tha…

To rephrase: Surpluses and shortages of skilled labor are very unevenly distributed. Differences in ease of automation will magnify this. If there is a demand for 100 neurosurgeons and then cut everyone's hours by 20%, you effectively created a shortage of 25 neurosurgeons. Decreasing hours doesn't increase supply and supply of highly skilled labor is not fungible i.e. you can't trivially retrain a PhD in electrical…

If they became 20% more productive, it's okay to cut hours- some 13% of labor savings goes to the owner, a few percent to the surgeons and the cost of service drops a little.

Surgeons aren't entitled to anything. They can move on. The said improvement benefits patients ("customers") the most, just the way it should be.

The article doesn't understand that a centrally planned economy can't produce wealth as efficiently as free market and that no one has the right to make the proposed changes on either the workers' or owners' behalf. If you want to point out what the core problem is.

Re: Economists Are Obsessed with Job Creation – How About Less Work? (2017)

#100

Post by pm90 »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #56
0815test wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That majority of work only accounts for a small portion of value on the margin . You could reduce that work quite a bit with very little overall effect. In fact, this could even increase total product since the unskilled do tend to be heavily liquidity- and risk-constrained, so freeing up some time and effort on their part (without the stress of involuntary unemployment!) would significantly incent them to do such th…

"That majority of work only accounts for a small portion of value on the margin." No, the surpluses yielded by consumers and profits by companies of those people 'doing the work' is vast. If they stopped doing it it would be a nightmare. We don't need resto servers to get English degrees, and then what, exactly? We need someone to do the resto serving. If they 'start their own business', like 'a restaurant' ... well…

> we should think about how to make it work better for everyone

This is one of the strongest arguments that I can see in favor of more lenient immigration, specifically to larger countries like US and Canada.

The number of low-skilled laborers content with the current level of pay will keep decreasing, rendering businesses unsustainable. However, for whatever reasons, other countries are better at producing low skilled labor content with those wages. If they are so willing, they should be able to immigrate, allowing the more educated and more skilled native to work in more creative, leadership capacity. Purely from the monetary perspective, natives should see the immigrants as a win-win.

However, when Immigrants cultures or skin colors are seen as being different and not worthy of being assimilated into the country, cultural reasons influence the reasoning strongly.

Post reply on HN