9 ms·

People often forget that jobs are an expense, not a benefit. We should celebrate that society can do more with less. If someone thinks that jobs need to be crea

by bko 11y ago

People often forget that jobs are an expense, not a benefit. We should celebrate that society can do more with less. If someone thinks that jobs need to be created through artificial means to keep people busy and give them some money, then that person has a rather dim view of human potential.

evanpw 11y ago
Related slatestarcodex post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-lik... "if your job can be done more cheaply without you, and the only reason you have it is because people would feel sorry for you if you didn’t, so the government forces your company to keep you on – well then, it’s not a job. It’s a welfare program that requires you to work 9 to 5 before seeing your welfare check."
- guelo 11y ago
  That's only bad if you have a bad conception of "welfare program". If you think society should provide for the welfare of all its members than it's not a bad connotation.
  - evanpw 11y ago
    The post argues that this back-door form of welfare is inferior in just about every way to just cutting people a check, but that we tend to do it this way exactly because "welfare" has negative connotations: 'With all these advantages of “Simple Check”, what exactly is the “Sneaky Job” condition good for that makes it so popular? As far as I can tell, it is good for fooling people. People do not like paying welfare.'
    - minimuffins 11y ago
      > "welfare" has negative connotations > People do not like paying welfare. We should work on fighting this perception. Welfare is actually good. There was a time in the past ('30s-'70s) when welfare wasn't a bad word. People liked the idea of welfare. It was a positive idea. That we're still all talking like this, like welfare is a handout to worthless losers, etc is a testament to the success of Reaganite conservative politics. We all talk like Gordon Gekko now. We should rehabilitate the word and the idea. Say it with me: WELFARE IS GOOD AND COOL.
      - nickff 11y ago
        The main problem with this line of thinking is that it is materialistic. People get more out of their jobs than money, and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] Most people are happier with a job that pays minimum wage than a welfare program that pays significantly more. [1] http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] It's worth reading the paper past the initial TL;DR bullet points. It goes into interesting discussion about what exactly it is about unemployment that makes people unhappy. Some quotes from the middle of the article: "There is plenty of evidence in support of the hypothesis that the evaluative component of well-being depends on how much one conforms to or deviates from the norms of the social group one associates with. For unemployment, this means that the harmful effect of unemployment on life satisfaction is larger the stronger the prevailing norm toward work is. (...) There is additional evidence in support of the importance of social norms to the degree of life satisfaction of people who are unemployed. A German study finds that unemployed people report a substantial increase in life satisfaction when they retire, although other life circumstances remain largely unchanged [10]. The study interprets retirement as a switch in the social group with which one identifies, from the working-age population to retirees, and thus to a change in the social work norm. Once an individual has retired, not working no longer violates the social work norm, and life satisfaction consequently increases. (...) The potential felt scarcities and worries associated with unemployment are manifold. They include fewer social contacts, less social recognition, less money, a less structured day, less control of one’s life, and less certainty about what the future will bring. Indeed, although the effect on happiness of temporary income reductions during unemployment is not very large, people who are unemployed worry about their future economic uncertainty." -- I think it's still possible that unemployeds' unhappiness is caused by the work-centric culture and economy. Being shoveled money at is problematic, because you're getting for free what society expects you to get by work. Consider the ultimate welfare we all get - sunlight, breathable air. No one feels inadequate or sad because they're receiving it for free. It's part of the environment. We assume air and sun are always there, will always be there, and are available to everyone without having to work for it. I think food and shelter are things we should actually try and push to the environmental level, i.e. have it available for free and to everyone, unconditionally.
- rsl7 11y ago
  so many assumptions there.
- sbilstein 11y ago
  slatestarcodex is the tech version of David Brooks.
slg 11y ago
Except for the fact that a job is a prerequisite to affording a comfortable lifestyle. Until something like basic income is implemented (which simply isn't politically practical in the US currently) I don't blame anyone for trying to artificially create jobs to keep people busy and allow them to earn some money.
- daodedickinson 11y ago
  It's a prerequisite to social distinction that can't be equalized, not to a standard of living far above average for the species by many measures.
whistlecrackers 11y ago
The curse of machinery! http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap07p1.html http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap07p1.html
- pixl97 11y ago
  What happens when we start replacing men with electronic minds? There is a particular class of problems of a 'machine economy' where machines produce products for machines, the machines can use the economic product more efficiently (at making the capital owners more profit), and humans are cut out of the loop. The last chapter of the essay points out the issue, not that machines take jobs, that machines can and will evolve faster than their human counterparts can causes issues with employment certainty, something that is very dangerous for economies.
  - javajosh 11y ago
    I think that we underestimate our value as physically dextrous beings. Imagine a world where robots do large-scale work in difficult environments, in return for human-produced bodies - which themselves lack the dexterity to reproduce themselves. (And it's not an artificial lack, either: I strongly suspect that general fine-motor control will be THE engineering problem for AIs for a very long time, perhaps forever.)
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > There is a particular class of problems of a 'machine economy' where machines produce products for machines, the machines can use the economic product more efficiently (at making the capital owners more profit), and humans are cut out of the loop. Or, as the SSC poetically puts it[0]: I broke my back lifting Moloch to Heaven, and all I got was this lousy Disneyland with no children. The post quotes Bostrom considering exactly this scenario, where in the end the economy, having optimized humans out of the loop, keeps running and generating wealth, with no conscious mind to enjoy it. [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
branchless 11y ago
To celebrate this we'd need a sharing of the common wealth. This is the polar opposite of the USA/UK. Right now we have a people taking the most (much of it through rentier activity) and the rest are given make-work too keep from idle-hands. If we had land value tax we'd be getting somewhere.
- hwstar 11y ago
  All a land value tax will do is drive up rents. A tax on wealth above 2 million USD adjusted for inflation would be better.
  - branchless 11y ago
    This is totally wrong. Why don't our "businessmen" landlords charge more rent now. Read up.
    - hwstar 11y ago
      When costs go up, they tend to get passed on-- Especially when everyone is subjected to the same cost increases. An example: Look at what happens to restaraunt prices when the minimum wage is increased. (I'm not endorsing that we should not raise the minimum wage, I'm just using it as a substitute for a land value tax as both will be applied uniformly).
  - nickff 11y ago
    Encouraging rich people to fritter away their money on ephemeral objects instead of investing in technologies and equipment which would improve per captica productivity would be good?
    - salemh 11y ago
      Do rich people invest in technologies and equipment as a safe haven for their capital?
      - 11y ago
jjoonathan 11y ago
Our current economic system holds that people don't deserve food, shelter, medical care, or dignity if they don't have a job. If you believe that we should stick with the current system then the proposition "everyone should have a job" follows from "everyone should have food, shelter, medical care, and dignity".
- bko 11y ago
  Well that's a disagreement between positive and negative rights: > A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action. You may believe in positive rights, like I have a right to food, shelter, etc. Others may believe in only negative rights, like I have the right to not provide you food, shelter etc. It's funny how so much of political debate can boil down to this fairly simple idea.
  - chongli 11y ago
    It's funny how so much of political debate can boil down to this fairly simple idea. Not really, it's an irrelevant distinction. If you have the right deprive me of food, shelter, etc. then I have the right to kill you in order to take those things for myself.
    - douche 11y ago
      Then I must have the right to kill and loot you after you get done killing and looting them. This is starting to sound like Fallout. Or maybe we should get onto welding spikes all over our vehicles and wearing hockey masks and assless chaps and go for a more Mad Max vibe.
      - chongli 11y ago
        Yes, it's called Hobbes' State of Nature[0]. Simply put, it's every person's natural right to do whatever is necessary to provide for themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature
laotzu 11y ago
>If someone thinks that jobs need to be created through artificial means to keep people busy and give them some money, then that person has a rather dim view of human potential One of the 3 main goals of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is to achieve maximum employment. This is why politicians harangue on "putting country x back to work". The idea that "the devil finds work for idle hands to do" is deeply ingrained in the fundamental assumptions of political economy.
- daodedickinson 11y ago
  As far as can tell, the redeeming social value of Netflix, if there is one, is keeping of the peace. I would say that making work to prevent antisocial behavior is deeply ingrained in civilization itself, and is perhaps at its core; The Prince calls for make-work projects to mandate full employment to keep the peace and it must have been a primary effect, intended or otherwise of pyramid building and other group rituals. The Nietzschean/Emersonian counterdream of everyone retiring to their own homes as gods leaves no peacekeeping force or incentive. The spiderweb on US paper bills symbolizes the intent of economic interdependence as a positive incentive for peace. Without economic interdependence, one could promote peace by propoganda, genetic engineering, medication, and many other ways, but as the population unNEEDed by others increases, I find it hard to see how that population's safety could increase indefinitely. The manufacturing of needs, of "increasingly sophisticated consumer tastes" in the Fukuyama-esque formulation, is probably reaching a breaking point (or at least I personally have stopped wanting any new consumer products) but don't fail to see the wisdom in an idea just because the devil metaphor can be taken in a manner so literal it offends your sensibilities.
s73v3r 11y ago
"People often forget that jobs are an expense, not a benefit. We should celebrate that society can do more with less." Not until such time that people don't need a job to survive. As is, a job is currently required to pay rent and buy food. "If someone thinks that jobs need to be created through artificial means to keep people busy and give them some money, then that person has a rather dim view of human potential." So how do you plan on housing and feeding all of the people who's jobs are displaced through technology?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Not until such time that people don't need a job to survive. People need an income to survive. Most people get incomes through jobs, some get them through capital holdings, a few get them through other means. > So how do you plan on housing and feeding all of the people who's jobs are displaced through technology? Jobs being displaced through technology means output is produced more effectively without the job than it would be with the job, and someone is capturing the value of that output. The issue becomes one of distributing the value of the output.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "People need an income to survive. Most people get incomes through jobs" Exactly, which makes any quibbling to my statement nothing but worthless pedantry. "Jobs being displaced through technology means output is produced more effectively without the job than it would be with the job, and someone is capturing the value of that output." Which has absolutely nothing to do with my question. "The issue becomes one of distributing the value of the output." Which is just rephrasing my question.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Exactly, which makes any quibbling to my statement nothing but worthless pedantry. No, it doesn't. The job is not the need, its just the most common way of satisfying the need. The need is the income. Automation of jobs because automation is more efficient means that the economy becomes better at producing output which can be distributed through other existing means of providing income, notably, tax-funded social benefit programs.

by bko 11y ago

evanpw 11y ago

Related slatestarcodex post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-lik... "if your job can be done more cheaply without you, and the only reason you have it is because people would feel sorry for you if you didn’t, so the government forces your company to keep you on – well then, it’s not a job. It’s a welfare program that requires you to work 9 to 5 before seeing your welfare check."

guelo 11y ago
That's only bad if you have a bad conception of "welfare program". If you think society should provide for the welfare of all its members than it's not a bad connotation.
- evanpw 11y ago
  The post argues that this back-door form of welfare is inferior in just about every way to just cutting people a check, but that we tend to do it this way exactly because "welfare" has negative connotations: 'With all these advantages of “Simple Check”, what exactly is the “Sneaky Job” condition good for that makes it so popular? As far as I can tell, it is good for fooling people. People do not like paying welfare.'
  - minimuffins 11y ago
    > "welfare" has negative connotations > People do not like paying welfare. We should work on fighting this perception. Welfare is actually good. There was a time in the past ('30s-'70s) when welfare wasn't a bad word. People liked the idea of welfare. It was a positive idea. That we're still all talking like this, like welfare is a handout to worthless losers, etc is a testament to the success of Reaganite conservative politics. We all talk like Gordon Gekko now. We should rehabilitate the word and the idea. Say it with me: WELFARE IS GOOD AND COOL.
    - nickff 11y ago
      The main problem with this line of thinking is that it is materialistic. People get more out of their jobs than money, and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] Most people are happier with a job that pays minimum wage than a welfare program that pays significantly more. [1] http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf http://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness.pdf
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > and just shovelling cash at the unemployed does not make them happy.[1] It's worth reading the paper past the initial TL;DR bullet points. It goes into interesting discussion about what exactly it is about unemployment that makes people unhappy. Some quotes from the middle of the article: "There is plenty of evidence in support of the hypothesis that the evaluative component of well-being depends on how much one conforms to or deviates from the norms of the social group one associates with. For unemployment, this means that the harmful effect of unemployment on life satisfaction is larger the stronger the prevailing norm toward work is. (...) There is additional evidence in support of the importance of social norms to the degree of life satisfaction of people who are unemployed. A German study finds that unemployed people report a substantial increase in life satisfaction when they retire, although other life circumstances remain largely unchanged [10]. The study interprets retirement as a switch in the social group with which one identifies, from the working-age population to retirees, and thus to a change in the social work norm. Once an individual has retired, not working no longer violates the social work norm, and life satisfaction consequently increases. (...) The potential felt scarcities and worries associated with unemployment are manifold. They include fewer social contacts, less social recognition, less money, a less structured day, less control of one’s life, and less certainty about what the future will bring. Indeed, although the effect on happiness of temporary income reductions during unemployment is not very large, people who are unemployed worry about their future economic uncertainty." -- I think it's still possible that unemployeds' unhappiness is caused by the work-centric culture and economy. Being shoveled money at is problematic, because you're getting for free what society expects you to get by work. Consider the ultimate welfare we all get - sunlight, breathable air. No one feels inadequate or sad because they're receiving it for free. It's part of the environment. We assume air and sun are always there, will always be there, and are available to everyone without having to work for it. I think food and shelter are things we should actually try and push to the environmental level, i.e. have it available for free and to everyone, unconditionally.
rsl7 11y ago
so many assumptions there.
sbilstein 11y ago
slatestarcodex is the tech version of David Brooks.

slg 11y ago

Except for the fact that a job is a prerequisite to affording a comfortable lifestyle. Until something like basic income is implemented (which simply isn't politically practical in the US currently) I don't blame anyone for trying to artificially create jobs to keep people busy and allow them to earn some money.

daodedickinson 11y ago
It's a prerequisite to social distinction that can't be equalized, not to a standard of living far above average for the species by many measures.

whistlecrackers 11y ago

The curse of machinery! http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap07p1.html http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap07p1.html

pixl97 11y ago
What happens when we start replacing men with electronic minds? There is a particular class of problems of a 'machine economy' where machines produce products for machines, the machines can use the economic product more efficiently (at making the capital owners more profit), and humans are cut out of the loop. The last chapter of the essay points out the issue, not that machines take jobs, that machines can and will evolve faster than their human counterparts can causes issues with employment certainty, something that is very dangerous for economies.
- javajosh 11y ago
  I think that we underestimate our value as physically dextrous beings. Imagine a world where robots do large-scale work in difficult environments, in return for human-produced bodies - which themselves lack the dexterity to reproduce themselves. (And it's not an artificial lack, either: I strongly suspect that general fine-motor control will be THE engineering problem for AIs for a very long time, perhaps forever.)
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > There is a particular class of problems of a 'machine economy' where machines produce products for machines, the machines can use the economic product more efficiently (at making the capital owners more profit), and humans are cut out of the loop. Or, as the SSC poetically puts it[0]: I broke my back lifting Moloch to Heaven, and all I got was this lousy Disneyland with no children. The post quotes Bostrom considering exactly this scenario, where in the end the economy, having optimized humans out of the loop, keeps running and generating wealth, with no conscious mind to enjoy it. [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

branchless 11y ago

To celebrate this we'd need a sharing of the common wealth. This is the polar opposite of the USA/UK. Right now we have a people taking the most (much of it through rentier activity) and the rest are given make-work too keep from idle-hands. If we had land value tax we'd be getting somewhere.

hwstar 11y ago
All a land value tax will do is drive up rents. A tax on wealth above 2 million USD adjusted for inflation would be better.
- branchless 11y ago
  This is totally wrong. Why don't our "businessmen" landlords charge more rent now. Read up.
  - hwstar 11y ago
    When costs go up, they tend to get passed on-- Especially when everyone is subjected to the same cost increases. An example: Look at what happens to restaraunt prices when the minimum wage is increased. (I'm not endorsing that we should not raise the minimum wage, I'm just using it as a substitute for a land value tax as both will be applied uniformly).
- nickff 11y ago
  Encouraging rich people to fritter away their money on ephemeral objects instead of investing in technologies and equipment which would improve per captica productivity would be good?
  - salemh 11y ago
    Do rich people invest in technologies and equipment as a safe haven for their capital?
    - 11y ago

jjoonathan 11y ago

Our current economic system holds that people don't deserve food, shelter, medical care, or dignity if they don't have a job. If you believe that we should stick with the current system then the proposition "everyone should have a job" follows from "everyone should have food, shelter, medical care, and dignity".

bko 11y ago
Well that's a disagreement between positive and negative rights: > A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action. You may believe in positive rights, like I have a right to food, shelter, etc. Others may believe in only negative rights, like I have the right to not provide you food, shelter etc. It's funny how so much of political debate can boil down to this fairly simple idea.
- chongli 11y ago
  It's funny how so much of political debate can boil down to this fairly simple idea. Not really, it's an irrelevant distinction. If you have the right deprive me of food, shelter, etc. then I have the right to kill you in order to take those things for myself.
  - douche 11y ago
    Then I must have the right to kill and loot you after you get done killing and looting them. This is starting to sound like Fallout. Or maybe we should get onto welding spikes all over our vehicles and wearing hockey masks and assless chaps and go for a more Mad Max vibe.
    - chongli 11y ago
      Yes, it's called Hobbes' State of Nature[0]. Simply put, it's every person's natural right to do whatever is necessary to provide for themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature

laotzu 11y ago

>If someone thinks that jobs need to be created through artificial means to keep people busy and give them some money, then that person has a rather dim view of human potential One of the 3 main goals of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is to achieve maximum employment. This is why politicians harangue on "putting country x back to work". The idea that "the devil finds work for idle hands to do" is deeply ingrained in the fundamental assumptions of political economy.

daodedickinson 11y ago
As far as can tell, the redeeming social value of Netflix, if there is one, is keeping of the peace. I would say that making work to prevent antisocial behavior is deeply ingrained in civilization itself, and is perhaps at its core; The Prince calls for make-work projects to mandate full employment to keep the peace and it must have been a primary effect, intended or otherwise of pyramid building and other group rituals. The Nietzschean/Emersonian counterdream of everyone retiring to their own homes as gods leaves no peacekeeping force or incentive. The spiderweb on US paper bills symbolizes the intent of economic interdependence as a positive incentive for peace. Without economic interdependence, one could promote peace by propoganda, genetic engineering, medication, and many other ways, but as the population unNEEDed by others increases, I find it hard to see how that population's safety could increase indefinitely. The manufacturing of needs, of "increasingly sophisticated consumer tastes" in the Fukuyama-esque formulation, is probably reaching a breaking point (or at least I personally have stopped wanting any new consumer products) but don't fail to see the wisdom in an idea just because the devil metaphor can be taken in a manner so literal it offends your sensibilities.

s73v3r 11y ago

"People often forget that jobs are an expense, not a benefit. We should celebrate that society can do more with less." Not until such time that people don't need a job to survive. As is, a job is currently required to pay rent and buy food. "If someone thinks that jobs need to be created through artificial means to keep people busy and give them some money, then that person has a rather dim view of human potential." So how do you plan on housing and feeding all of the people who's jobs are displaced through technology?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Not until such time that people don't need a job to survive. People need an income to survive. Most people get incomes through jobs, some get them through capital holdings, a few get them through other means. > So how do you plan on housing and feeding all of the people who's jobs are displaced through technology? Jobs being displaced through technology means output is produced more effectively without the job than it would be with the job, and someone is capturing the value of that output. The issue becomes one of distributing the value of the output.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "People need an income to survive. Most people get incomes through jobs" Exactly, which makes any quibbling to my statement nothing but worthless pedantry. "Jobs being displaced through technology means output is produced more effectively without the job than it would be with the job, and someone is capturing the value of that output." Which has absolutely nothing to do with my question. "The issue becomes one of distributing the value of the output." Which is just rephrasing my question.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Exactly, which makes any quibbling to my statement nothing but worthless pedantry. No, it doesn't. The job is not the need, its just the most common way of satisfying the need. The need is the income. Automation of jobs because automation is more efficient means that the economy becomes better at producing output which can be distributed through other existing means of providing income, notably, tax-funded social benefit programs.