6 ms·

It clearly did reduce work, and the article spells out how. You're just okay with the reasons for that reduction, which is quite a different thing to claiming

It clearly did reduce work, and the article spells out how. You're just okay with the reasons for that reduction, which is quite a different thing to claiming there was no reduction.

ende 11y ago
A reduction in working hours does not equate to a reduction in productivity. We should be striving to minimize time spent working while maximizing productivity as a basic goal of capitalistic society. Also this old argument about reduced work incentives is becoming increasingly invalid as an expansion in permanent structural unemployment due to automation, hyperefficiency, and globalized labor markets is spelling the end of industrial labor to begin with. Meaning that there simply are not enough jobs to go around, regardless of incentive. It's one thing to chalk unemployment up to laziness in an era of abundant opportunity, it's quite another in a post-industrial era of labor scarcity.
- VLM 11y ago
  I've never seen a better post for the old quote about the future already being here, just unevenly distributed. Web frontend devs with ivy degrees living in SV don't have much permanent structural unemployment, well at least until they get older. Its a bit more of a current issue for the other 7.3 billion people in the world.
- Natsu 11y ago
  I hope you're right. I fear you're wrong. I used to work in a job that I don't think was very amenable to automation. It was a terrible job and I don't miss it one bit. I doubt anyone would want to work it if they didn't actually need money. Sure, maybe we can live without windows or something, I just don't know how many such products there are. Money isn't everything, after all--there has to be something you can actually buy with that money. And if nobody or almost nobody is willing to make those things any more, what then? That's the part that scares me. I'm sure we can print enough money for everyone. I'm not sure how much of anything there will be to buy with it. And all the arguments for this are "it's the right thing to do" rather than "we know we can make this work because..."
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Slow down a little bit. If people can't afford windows, they don't reasonably have enough money (where money is access to the economy rather than pieces of paper). A simple thing to do to limit the unexpected economic consequences is to limit the size of the basic income. For example, give everyone $5 and you are unlikely to see any effects at all. Of course then the outcome isn't very interesting, but the basic mechanism isn't necessarily going to implode the economy.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      Right, it's clearly a matter of degree and the thing is I don't hear economists talking about this, only the general public, who has some sort of warm fuzzy feeling about the idea of free money, but little actual talk about what's going to happen. My feeling is that it will either be too low to be meaningful or too high and it'll lower the production of useful things to buy, such that we're actually poorer in some sense in spite of it. I certainly agree with you about the fact that the production of the things we buy with money being more important than the rectangular pieces of paper, though. So I actually think it can work out for a country like Norway, that's small and rich and which imports plenty of physical goods from elsewhere with oil money, and therefore where it honestly doesn't change much of anything. It's what happens when everybody does it that I wonder about. But maybe I'm wrong and it will just end up outsourcing all the labor to China / Mexico / SE Asia / wherever with a manageable inflation and we'll muddle through somehow. I don't really know, which is why I'm disturbed that I see so few people who seem to have any good idea about the actual effects talking about it.
  - ashark 11y ago
    I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now. I might expect the prices of things to go up a little because the typical laborer's bargaining position would be closer (but still inferior) to that of the typical employer[1], but why would people stop wanting more money than they have/are getting? [1] Specifically, their worst-case outcome in negotiating employment terms (i.e. failing to agree on terms and not getting the job, then not managing to get another offer fast enough) might improve from catastrophic to merely quite bad.
- akjj 11y ago
  Remember also that a well-known limitation of economic measurements of GDP, productivity, etc. is that it doesn't account for personal work when no money changes hands. For example, a man who works full time and spends 100% of his salary on a nanny gets counted in GDP. But if he quits his job and takes care of the kid and the nanny takes his old job, then GDP and productivity have been reduced. Nothing has been changed about the amount of work done, but you've replaced two people working for money with only one working for money, so the accounting systems show it as less. If part of the effect of minimum income is for people to spend more time with their kids, then this would show up as less work, in part, because less of the work being done would be for money.
Quanticles 11y ago
Let's say someone gets a PhD - that takes ~5 years. So instead of entering the workforce at 22, they enter the workforce at 27. If they retire at 70, then their working hours went down from 48 years of work to 43 years of work, or ~10%. Do you consider the ~10% loss in working hours a major disadvantage? I could definitely see more people getting advanced degrees in a "MINCOME" society. For example, I have a family member that really wants to do a masters, but had to work through school and isn't sure they can swing it for a masters too.

It clearly did reduce work, and the article spells out how. You're just okay with the reasons for that reduction, which is quite a different thing to claiming there was no reduction.

ende 11y ago

A reduction in working hours does not equate to a reduction in productivity. We should be striving to minimize time spent working while maximizing productivity as a basic goal of capitalistic society. Also this old argument about reduced work incentives is becoming increasingly invalid as an expansion in permanent structural unemployment due to automation, hyperefficiency, and globalized labor markets is spelling the end of industrial labor to begin with. Meaning that there simply are not enough jobs to go around, regardless of incentive. It's one thing to chalk unemployment up to laziness in an era of abundant opportunity, it's quite another in a post-industrial era of labor scarcity.

VLM 11y ago
I've never seen a better post for the old quote about the future already being here, just unevenly distributed. Web frontend devs with ivy degrees living in SV don't have much permanent structural unemployment, well at least until they get older. Its a bit more of a current issue for the other 7.3 billion people in the world.
Natsu 11y ago
I hope you're right. I fear you're wrong. I used to work in a job that I don't think was very amenable to automation. It was a terrible job and I don't miss it one bit. I doubt anyone would want to work it if they didn't actually need money. Sure, maybe we can live without windows or something, I just don't know how many such products there are. Money isn't everything, after all--there has to be something you can actually buy with that money. And if nobody or almost nobody is willing to make those things any more, what then? That's the part that scares me. I'm sure we can print enough money for everyone. I'm not sure how much of anything there will be to buy with it. And all the arguments for this are "it's the right thing to do" rather than "we know we can make this work because..."
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Slow down a little bit. If people can't afford windows, they don't reasonably have enough money (where money is access to the economy rather than pieces of paper). A simple thing to do to limit the unexpected economic consequences is to limit the size of the basic income. For example, give everyone $5 and you are unlikely to see any effects at all. Of course then the outcome isn't very interesting, but the basic mechanism isn't necessarily going to implode the economy.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Right, it's clearly a matter of degree and the thing is I don't hear economists talking about this, only the general public, who has some sort of warm fuzzy feeling about the idea of free money, but little actual talk about what's going to happen. My feeling is that it will either be too low to be meaningful or too high and it'll lower the production of useful things to buy, such that we're actually poorer in some sense in spite of it. I certainly agree with you about the fact that the production of the things we buy with money being more important than the rectangular pieces of paper, though. So I actually think it can work out for a country like Norway, that's small and rich and which imports plenty of physical goods from elsewhere with oil money, and therefore where it honestly doesn't change much of anything. It's what happens when everybody does it that I wonder about. But maybe I'm wrong and it will just end up outsourcing all the labor to China / Mexico / SE Asia / wherever with a manageable inflation and we'll muddle through somehow. I don't really know, which is why I'm disturbed that I see so few people who seem to have any good idea about the actual effects talking about it.
- ashark 11y ago
  I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now. I might expect the prices of things to go up a little because the typical laborer's bargaining position would be closer (but still inferior) to that of the typical employer[1], but why would people stop wanting more money than they have/are getting? [1] Specifically, their worst-case outcome in negotiating employment terms (i.e. failing to agree on terms and not getting the job, then not managing to get another offer fast enough) might improve from catastrophic to merely quite bad.
akjj 11y ago
Remember also that a well-known limitation of economic measurements of GDP, productivity, etc. is that it doesn't account for personal work when no money changes hands. For example, a man who works full time and spends 100% of his salary on a nanny gets counted in GDP. But if he quits his job and takes care of the kid and the nanny takes his old job, then GDP and productivity have been reduced. Nothing has been changed about the amount of work done, but you've replaced two people working for money with only one working for money, so the accounting systems show it as less. If part of the effect of minimum income is for people to spend more time with their kids, then this would show up as less work, in part, because less of the work being done would be for money.

Quanticles 11y ago

Let's say someone gets a PhD - that takes ~5 years. So instead of entering the workforce at 22, they enter the workforce at 27. If they retire at 70, then their working hours went down from 48 years of work to 43 years of work, or ~10%. Do you consider the ~10% loss in working hours a major disadvantage? I could definitely see more people getting advanced degrees in a "MINCOME" society. For example, I have a family member that really wants to do a masters, but had to work through school and isn't sure they can swing it for a masters too.