4 ms·

It might come across as callous, but I'm only being realistic about whose responsibility it is to take care of an individual. The compulsion of government shoul

by aminok 10y ago

It might come across as callous, but I'm only being realistic about whose responsibility it is to take care of an individual. The compulsion of government should not be used to make one individual responsible for providing for another. That is as morally abhorrent as slavery. > think you are also assuming that there will always be sufficient numbers of jobs to keep sufficient numbers of the citizenry employed If there isn't, and I happen to have enough wealth to survive without a job, it shouldn't be made my responsibility to provide for someone who cannot. If a truck driver is concerned about the possibility of a shortage of jobs in thr future, then he should invest now to build his/her wealth to prepare for that eventuality. >The 'free market' is about to break, which is the point that Yanis (and many others) has made. There is less than zero evidence for this claim. It is dangerous fear-mongering.

Jedd 10y ago
> The compulsion of government should not be used to make one > individual responsible for providing for another. That is as > morally abhorrent as slavery. Crikey - that escalated quickly. Government is all about restricting what you can do (don't steal, don't kill, etc) under the banner of providing for other members of society (provision of safety, protection under the law, etc). There's a clear trend over the last several decades showing precisely the reallocation of wealth from working classes to middle / upper class. Here in AU we've just had a budget presented that, once again, provides welfare for middle / upper, with an increased tax burden to the lower / working. It's not as though this is a once-off event, or something that our friends in Europe or the US haven't been noticing either. > If there isn't, and I happen to have enough wealth to survive > without a job, it shouldn't be made my responsibility to provide > for someone who cannot. Could you describe your thoughts on the contra situation there -- where there isn't, and you don't happen to have enough wealth to survive. I'm guessing you've enjoyed some good fortune in regards the circumstances of your birth. > If a truck driver is concerned about the possibility of > a shortage of jobs in thr future, then he should invest > now to build his/her wealth to prepare for that eventuality. I really don't know if you're trolling. It's not just about truck drivers, though they're a good example because a) there's lots of them, b) today the job they do is essential to western societies, c) once they start to be replaced by computers / robots the changeover is going to be astonishingly fast, so you're going to have an awful lot of them hit the job market very quickly, worldwide, and most importantly d) they're not particularly well paid so they are unlikely to have a whole lot of wealth to invest. If your answer to this kind of problem is 'it sucks to be you', then I hope you're not in a position of contributing to public policy. > > The 'free market' is about to break, which is the point that > > Yanis (and many others) has made. > > There is less than zero evidence for this claim. It is dangerous > fear-mongering. Did you read the OP? What evidence would satisfy you? Lots of announcements of huge layoffs across multiple industry sectors but almost no announcements of large job creations (well, lots of announcements, but subsequent analysis of these generally reveal they were hugely optimistic - never delivering what they promised)? Clear decline, almost universally, of the wage component of GDP? A belief that an increase in the sophistication of technology and automation can increase the job market?
- aminok 10y ago
  >Government is all about restricting what you can do (don't steal, don't kill, etc) under the banner of providing for other members of society (provision of safety, protection under the law, etc). No that is not what government is all about. The just purpose of government is to coordinate usage of communal property, for the general betterment. So levying a split rate property tax, to pay for national defense, would be a just exercise of government power, because the average person is better off with a portion of land rents being spent for this purpose, than the land title owners collecting this portion. Where there is justification for the government using force against an individual, it is in subduing and punishing those who who violate people's rights. Banning theft is okay. Banning marijuana usage is not. This is basic non-aggression principle stuff. >where there isn't, and you don't happen to have enough wealth to survive. Then I either ask for help or resign myself to my fate. Robbing people cannot be justified, and legalizing such a solution is not sustainable. >once they start to be replaced by computers / robots the changeover is going to be astonishingly fast, so you're going to have an awful lot of them hit the job market very quickly, worldwide, and most importantly d) they're not particularly well paid so they are unlikely to have a whole lot of wealth to invest. Then they better start saving now! Their financial situation cannot be made someone else's legal responsibility, or else you create a political system where political activism can net you resources coerced from others, and one where the consequence of your irresponsibility can be passed on to others against the other's will. It totally perverts capital allocation and incentives, and is rank authoritarianism. >Lots of announcements of huge layoffs across multiple industry sectors but almost no announcements of large job creations There are always huge layoffs in an economy with hundreds of millions of people. Statistics on large scale trends contradict the OP. We have seen unprecedented automation over the last 40 years yet today in the US the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since 1963. Similarly all around the world over the last 30 to 40 years we have seen rapid automation and hundreds of millions of jobs being replaced by machines, yet there has been massive growth in the total number of jobs, increases in wages, and improvements in standard of living, over the same time span. Anything less than statistics on global trends in employment is totally invalid as evidence for technological unemployment, and unsusprisingly, the author provides none.

by aminok 10y ago

Jedd 10y ago

> The compulsion of government should not be used to make one > individual responsible for providing for another. That is as > morally abhorrent as slavery. Crikey - that escalated quickly. Government is all about restricting what you can do (don't steal, don't kill, etc) under the banner of providing for other members of society (provision of safety, protection under the law, etc). There's a clear trend over the last several decades showing precisely the reallocation of wealth from working classes to middle / upper class. Here in AU we've just had a budget presented that, once again, provides welfare for middle / upper, with an increased tax burden to the lower / working. It's not as though this is a once-off event, or something that our friends in Europe or the US haven't been noticing either. > If there isn't, and I happen to have enough wealth to survive > without a job, it shouldn't be made my responsibility to provide > for someone who cannot. Could you describe your thoughts on the contra situation there -- where there isn't, and you don't happen to have enough wealth to survive. I'm guessing you've enjoyed some good fortune in regards the circumstances of your birth. > If a truck driver is concerned about the possibility of > a shortage of jobs in thr future, then he should invest > now to build his/her wealth to prepare for that eventuality. I really don't know if you're trolling. It's not just about truck drivers, though they're a good example because a) there's lots of them, b) today the job they do is essential to western societies, c) once they start to be replaced by computers / robots the changeover is going to be astonishingly fast, so you're going to have an awful lot of them hit the job market very quickly, worldwide, and most importantly d) they're not particularly well paid so they are unlikely to have a whole lot of wealth to invest. If your answer to this kind of problem is 'it sucks to be you', then I hope you're not in a position of contributing to public policy. > > The 'free market' is about to break, which is the point that > > Yanis (and many others) has made. > > There is less than zero evidence for this claim. It is dangerous > fear-mongering. Did you read the OP? What evidence would satisfy you? Lots of announcements of huge layoffs across multiple industry sectors but almost no announcements of large job creations (well, lots of announcements, but subsequent analysis of these generally reveal they were hugely optimistic - never delivering what they promised)? Clear decline, almost universally, of the wage component of GDP? A belief that an increase in the sophistication of technology and automation can increase the job market?

aminok 10y ago
>Government is all about restricting what you can do (don't steal, don't kill, etc) under the banner of providing for other members of society (provision of safety, protection under the law, etc). No that is not what government is all about. The just purpose of government is to coordinate usage of communal property, for the general betterment. So levying a split rate property tax, to pay for national defense, would be a just exercise of government power, because the average person is better off with a portion of land rents being spent for this purpose, than the land title owners collecting this portion. Where there is justification for the government using force against an individual, it is in subduing and punishing those who who violate people's rights. Banning theft is okay. Banning marijuana usage is not. This is basic non-aggression principle stuff. >where there isn't, and you don't happen to have enough wealth to survive. Then I either ask for help or resign myself to my fate. Robbing people cannot be justified, and legalizing such a solution is not sustainable. >once they start to be replaced by computers / robots the changeover is going to be astonishingly fast, so you're going to have an awful lot of them hit the job market very quickly, worldwide, and most importantly d) they're not particularly well paid so they are unlikely to have a whole lot of wealth to invest. Then they better start saving now! Their financial situation cannot be made someone else's legal responsibility, or else you create a political system where political activism can net you resources coerced from others, and one where the consequence of your irresponsibility can be passed on to others against the other's will. It totally perverts capital allocation and incentives, and is rank authoritarianism. >Lots of announcements of huge layoffs across multiple industry sectors but almost no announcements of large job creations There are always huge layoffs in an economy with hundreds of millions of people. Statistics on large scale trends contradict the OP. We have seen unprecedented automation over the last 40 years yet today in the US the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since 1963. Similarly all around the world over the last 30 to 40 years we have seen rapid automation and hundreds of millions of jobs being replaced by machines, yet there has been massive growth in the total number of jobs, increases in wages, and improvements in standard of living, over the same time span. Anything less than statistics on global trends in employment is totally invalid as evidence for technological unemployment, and unsusprisingly, the author provides none.