12 ms·

I think the fundamental purpose of a business is to accomplish a task, not to employ people. For example, I don't care how many people are employed to keep hack

I think the fundamental purpose of a business is to accomplish a task, not to employ people. For example, I don't care how many people are employed to keep hackernews running. I'm thankful for their efforts, but I don't care if it's one person, ten people, or one bot. Or how much any of them get paid. The only thing that consumers and businesses care about is the end result. If a job can be done by a machine, that's fine. People will find new forms of employment. Or they won't. But we can't expect businesses or consumers to misallocate their resources for the sake of someone's job. Fortunately, fully automating the process of driving or running a restaurant is decades away. We have time to implement a basic income. Or just come up with more ways to employ people. The number of available jobs is limited only by imagination. "Instagram Photo Producer", "Online Forum Discussion Facilitator", "3D Printed Object Finisher". Someone can pay someone else to do any given thing, and now that's an occupation. "Potential Job Titles" isn't a finite list, and we can't ever run out of them.

x5n1 11y ago
Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives. So yes as governments you do expect exactly that. You also expect to reduce disparity between the rich and poor. Why? Because you don't want people to revolt and create chaos. If unemployment goes up too much and there are no jobs, people will revolt and violence will occur... in which people will probably destroy your peaceful stable life... your factory... and your government. So yes the government has to as its objectives solve these issues. If they don't then people have the right to get rid of such a government, and take all your wealth and means of production.
- drodgers 11y ago
  The government could achieve full-employment by drafting everyone or paying them to dig ditches then fill them in again, but that would be really wasteful. If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. If the economy can't find full-time roles for some people, then we as a society — though the state — can just give them money to survive (a 'basic income') and let them do whatever they want with their time (including working part time jobs that wouldn't be able to sustain them on their own). It would be a much more productive and enjoyable use of their time than digging ditches :p
  - chii 11y ago
    > If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do then those people who cannot be useful will not survive - it's as simple as that. It takes resources to keep someone alive, and that resource must come from somewhere. I'd live for basic income to be viable, but i highly doubt it's viable, given that it amounts to altruism (from those people who own the means of production/automation). We'd have to have free or near-free energy.
    - robryan 11y ago
      What is the difference though between them being paid for unproductive work for the sake of having a job or being paid a basic income?
      - apalmer 11y ago
        but that's the thing... they most likely wont be paid for unproductive work or given a basic income they will simply be let to starve as has ALWAYS been done historically. This is the key point that always perplexes me in these discussions of automation, the belief that somehow a fully automated society is going to lead to large swaths of the population not doing work and somehow being given basic income and being left to chase 'loftier pursuits' instead of 'wage slavery'... its not a logical expectation based on past human history...
        pitay 11y ago
        One could hope that we aspire higher than killing people or allowing people to dies because they have no use to you. It's psychopathic and values people as nothing expect for their use to you, the same way a rapist doesn't give any value to their victims lives, just what they can get from them. Anyone suggesting that unemployed people don't get paid are on the same boat, because they do not value those lives at all, unless it gets them something.
        infinite8s 11y ago
        Human history has always been dominated by scarcity. Fully automated production would by definition be a repudiation of all economic theories built upon a foundation of scarcity, so we can't really use them to guide us in devising a solution. The closest humans have ever come is the indiginous potlach societies of Papua New Guinea where scarcity wasn't an issue and people lived fairly idle lives (and substituted physical scarcity with societal scarcity).
- dietrichepp 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental macroeconomic objective". Surely the purpose of full employment is so the people who are employed can enjoy a certain standard of life.
- tomp 11y ago
  > Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives Except for kids/students, and retired people. Nothing is preventing us from studying until we're 30 and retiring at 35 - if only the minority of the population can be productive enough (with the help of machines, obviously) to produce enough for the rest.
  - apalmer 11y ago
    the thing that is preventing this from happening is starvation. In a capitalist society where 90% do not contribute to production or commerce and the labor is done and capital owned by the 10%... the 90% starves.
- gozur88 11y ago
  Full employment is not a goal of any particular business, though. "The economy" is just a term to describe the transactions people make over time in their own interest. And any system built on the expectation people will ignore their own interests for the common good is destined to fail.
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  Keep in mind too that the idea of "full employment" doesn't mean 100% employment, it's a technical term. I will just say, your view is a little overly antagonistic. Keep this in mind, if they government created too much artificiality in the market, which seems to be what you are asking for, this would not solve the people's problems. Under your view, the government might as well print countless amounts of currency and just distribute it without any regard to it's value.
JulianMorrison 11y ago
Business is a social construct and we can un-construct it if it proves no longer to be the socially valuable way to do things. It's there to serve humans. if it doesn't do that, it's a parasite, drag it out behind the shed and shoot it.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  If people find a business's product valuable enough that they'd pay their own money for it, then it serves a valuable purpose.
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    Overly small scale perspective. Exaggerated scenario for clarity: your one starving human buying survival kibble from a fully automated megacorporation is better off with the kibble and without the pittance they spent on it, an infinitesimal amount of value was created. But humanity as a whole would be better off overthrowing the business system and directing the machines to make every human's life a paradise. Systems should be compared as systems, not as piecemeal and mostly-forced decisions.
    - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
      No, not at all. I think in all the comments here, there is an egregious error. The error is in totally ignoring the concept of economics or failing the recognize the reality of scarcity. It's not a "social construct"in any non-trivial sense. People throw that "social construct" thing around as if it is at all relevant. You could say the "law of identity" is a social construct and you don't accept ... Ok that's fine, it just means you, and I mean this only literally, don't accept "logic." To "make every human's life a paradise" is also quite literally to either reject the concept of scarcity or to think you would create some sort "Matrix" like environment, some weird sci-fi stuff, which is fun to talk about but not a solid economics argument.
      - Spooky23 11y ago
dinkumthinkum 11y ago
The one fault in your logic is that the way companies behave in terms of hiring, can affect the value decision for agents/consumers and thus I think the economics in the world is a little more complicated than you suggest. But, I kind of agree with your basic point.
SyneRyder 11y ago
"Fortunately, fully automating the process of driving or running a restaurant is decades away." It's closer than you think. Dominos Australia is already trialling automated delivery (in Brisbane, I believe?) with their new DRU robots. [1][2] On the pro-human side, Dominos appear to be testing if people will pay extra for a human, under the guise of "For an extra $3, guaranteed delivery in 20 minutes." (The DRU robots have a top speed of 20km/hr currently.) [1] https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/dru https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/dru [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb0nxQyv7RU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb0nxQyv7RU [3] https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/delivery-guarantee https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/deliver...
- benashford 11y ago
  There was something about that video that makes me think DRU isn't a serious proposition; and even if it were, it isn't yet being used for actual deliveries. This is a common theme with new technology. The sceptics always claim "it's decades away", the enthusiasts always claim "it's nearly here - look!" But what usually happens is something in between. Essentially both are right, some stepping-stone will launch or be trialled, but it takes decades to be refined to the point where it actually delivers on the hype that was "real soon now" way back when; and by the time that happens, everyone has got used to it so the milestone passes without anyone noticing. In the case of automatic vehicles I don't know when that clock started ticking, so I don't really know how far along we really are.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  you linked to early April fools joke ...

x5n1 11y ago

Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives. So yes as governments you do expect exactly that. You also expect to reduce disparity between the rich and poor. Why? Because you don't want people to revolt and create chaos. If unemployment goes up too much and there are no jobs, people will revolt and violence will occur... in which people will probably destroy your peaceful stable life... your factory... and your government. So yes the government has to as its objectives solve these issues. If they don't then people have the right to get rid of such a government, and take all your wealth and means of production.

drodgers 11y ago
The government could achieve full-employment by drafting everyone or paying them to dig ditches then fill them in again, but that would be really wasteful. If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. If the economy can't find full-time roles for some people, then we as a society — though the state — can just give them money to survive (a 'basic income') and let them do whatever they want with their time (including working part time jobs that wouldn't be able to sustain them on their own). It would be a much more productive and enjoyable use of their time than digging ditches :p
- chii 11y ago
  > If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do then those people who cannot be useful will not survive - it's as simple as that. It takes resources to keep someone alive, and that resource must come from somewhere. I'd live for basic income to be viable, but i highly doubt it's viable, given that it amounts to altruism (from those people who own the means of production/automation). We'd have to have free or near-free energy.
  - robryan 11y ago
    What is the difference though between them being paid for unproductive work for the sake of having a job or being paid a basic income?
    - apalmer 11y ago
      but that's the thing... they most likely wont be paid for unproductive work or given a basic income they will simply be let to starve as has ALWAYS been done historically. This is the key point that always perplexes me in these discussions of automation, the belief that somehow a fully automated society is going to lead to large swaths of the population not doing work and somehow being given basic income and being left to chase 'loftier pursuits' instead of 'wage slavery'... its not a logical expectation based on past human history...
      - pitay 11y ago
        One could hope that we aspire higher than killing people or allowing people to dies because they have no use to you. It's psychopathic and values people as nothing expect for their use to you, the same way a rapist doesn't give any value to their victims lives, just what they can get from them. Anyone suggesting that unemployed people don't get paid are on the same boat, because they do not value those lives at all, unless it gets them something.
      - infinite8s 11y ago
        Human history has always been dominated by scarcity. Fully automated production would by definition be a repudiation of all economic theories built upon a foundation of scarcity, so we can't really use them to guide us in devising a solution. The closest humans have ever come is the indiginous potlach societies of Papua New Guinea where scarcity wasn't an issue and people lived fairly idle lives (and substituted physical scarcity with societal scarcity).
dietrichepp 11y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental macroeconomic objective". Surely the purpose of full employment is so the people who are employed can enjoy a certain standard of life.
tomp 11y ago
> Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives Except for kids/students, and retired people. Nothing is preventing us from studying until we're 30 and retiring at 35 - if only the minority of the population can be productive enough (with the help of machines, obviously) to produce enough for the rest.
- apalmer 11y ago
  the thing that is preventing this from happening is starvation. In a capitalist society where 90% do not contribute to production or commerce and the labor is done and capital owned by the 10%... the 90% starves.
gozur88 11y ago
Full employment is not a goal of any particular business, though. "The economy" is just a term to describe the transactions people make over time in their own interest. And any system built on the expectation people will ignore their own interests for the common good is destined to fail.
dinkumthinkum 11y ago
Keep in mind too that the idea of "full employment" doesn't mean 100% employment, it's a technical term. I will just say, your view is a little overly antagonistic. Keep this in mind, if they government created too much artificiality in the market, which seems to be what you are asking for, this would not solve the people's problems. Under your view, the government might as well print countless amounts of currency and just distribute it without any regard to it's value.

JulianMorrison 11y ago

Business is a social construct and we can un-construct it if it proves no longer to be the socially valuable way to do things. It's there to serve humans. if it doesn't do that, it's a parasite, drag it out behind the shed and shoot it.

WalterBright 11y ago
If people find a business's product valuable enough that they'd pay their own money for it, then it serves a valuable purpose.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Overly small scale perspective. Exaggerated scenario for clarity: your one starving human buying survival kibble from a fully automated megacorporation is better off with the kibble and without the pittance they spent on it, an infinitesimal amount of value was created. But humanity as a whole would be better off overthrowing the business system and directing the machines to make every human's life a paradise. Systems should be compared as systems, not as piecemeal and mostly-forced decisions.
  - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
    No, not at all. I think in all the comments here, there is an egregious error. The error is in totally ignoring the concept of economics or failing the recognize the reality of scarcity. It's not a "social construct"in any non-trivial sense. People throw that "social construct" thing around as if it is at all relevant. You could say the "law of identity" is a social construct and you don't accept ... Ok that's fine, it just means you, and I mean this only literally, don't accept "logic." To "make every human's life a paradise" is also quite literally to either reject the concept of scarcity or to think you would create some sort "Matrix" like environment, some weird sci-fi stuff, which is fun to talk about but not a solid economics argument.
    - Spooky23 11y ago

dinkumthinkum 11y ago

The one fault in your logic is that the way companies behave in terms of hiring, can affect the value decision for agents/consumers and thus I think the economics in the world is a little more complicated than you suggest. But, I kind of agree with your basic point.

SyneRyder 11y ago

"Fortunately, fully automating the process of driving or running a restaurant is decades away." It's closer than you think. Dominos Australia is already trialling automated delivery (in Brisbane, I believe?) with their new DRU robots. [1][2] On the pro-human side, Dominos appear to be testing if people will pay extra for a human, under the guise of "For an extra $3, guaranteed delivery in 20 minutes." (The DRU robots have a top speed of 20km/hr currently.) [1] https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/dru https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/dru [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb0nxQyv7RU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb0nxQyv7RU [3] https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/delivery-guarantee https://www.dominos.com.au/inside-dominos/technology/deliver...

benashford 11y ago
There was something about that video that makes me think DRU isn't a serious proposition; and even if it were, it isn't yet being used for actual deliveries. This is a common theme with new technology. The sceptics always claim "it's decades away", the enthusiasts always claim "it's nearly here - look!" But what usually happens is something in between. Essentially both are right, some stepping-stone will launch or be trialled, but it takes decades to be refined to the point where it actually delivers on the hype that was "real soon now" way back when; and by the time that happens, everyone has got used to it so the milestone passes without anyone noticing. In the case of automatic vehicles I don't know when that clock started ticking, so I don't really know how far along we really are.
rasz_pl 11y ago
you linked to early April fools joke ...