5 ms·

As the author of the article, I'm glad that even people with wildly different normative premises recognize I'm 100% right on factual matters: namely that automa

As the author of the article, I'm glad that even people with wildly different normative premises recognize I'm 100% right on factual matters: namely that automation has not eliminated jobs and that wealth transfers cause people to refuse to work. We probably disagree on normative premises - I believe even low skill people should also contribute to society - but that's fine. I'm only arguing about facts in this piece.

p4wnc6 10y ago
I'm not sure I find it useful to provide a descriptive framework about this issue without also discussing a normative interpretation. In fact, I think I personally have a somewhat extreme view that we have to do a better job of even defining what "work" means, and that such a definition should not be articulated in purely economic terms, but that aspects of human mental health, goal satisfaction, Self Determination Theory, and baseline morally just working conditions should be mandatory prerequisites to any notion of "work" -- that economic analyses of the side effects of different work-related policies are literally only meaningful if they take place after accounting for these other baseline factors.
st3v3r 10y ago
Except that's not at all what the person you're responding to said. And it's quite possible that there are multiple causes for job elimination. Automation eliminating classes of jobs being one, and menial jobs simply not paying enough to be worth it. You're not really talking about facts. You're quoting numbers, but not seeking to actually understand the numbers at all. This is illustrated greatly by your crack that poverty wages in the US would make someone "rich" in India. You're completely ignoring any and all context around that number.
antisthenes 10y ago
> automation has not eliminated jobs and that wealth transfers cause people to refuse to work. One of those statements is meaningless and the other is flat-out incorrect. Since you seem to have no education in economics aside from some libertarian drivel you picked up elsewhere (going only by your resume), I'll explain: 1. Automation has obviously not eliminated all jobs. It has eliminated some jobs, which have been partially or fully replaced by new, higher-skill jobs. There is an ongoing debate on how many of eliminated jobs get replaced and whether they get replaced in full at all. This isn't even an economic argument. 2. Welfare is a transfer of income, not wealth. Wealth is by and large capital, means of production and generally does not get transferred as it would be a violation of property rights - a literal theft of assets. Welfare occurs in the short term, whereas if you gave poor people stocks that were taken from investors - that would be a transfer of wealth. > I'm only arguing about facts in this piece. But your argument has nothing to do with automation. The arguments you presented give a case for some regulations being harmful to creating additional low-wage jobs.
- crusso 10y ago
  aside from some libertarian drivel you picked up elsewhere Please avoid these kinds of attacks on HN. Just make your case without making it personal. Thanks.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Exactly. And taking a case of Uber where we remove the taxi medallions and where the endgame is complete automation it's obvious why even if it was trying to make that claim a very recents example shows it to more complicated than that.

p4wnc6 10y ago

I'm not sure I find it useful to provide a descriptive framework about this issue without also discussing a normative interpretation. In fact, I think I personally have a somewhat extreme view that we have to do a better job of even defining what "work" means, and that such a definition should not be articulated in purely economic terms, but that aspects of human mental health, goal satisfaction, Self Determination Theory, and baseline morally just working conditions should be mandatory prerequisites to any notion of "work" -- that economic analyses of the side effects of different work-related policies are literally only meaningful if they take place after accounting for these other baseline factors.

st3v3r 10y ago

Except that's not at all what the person you're responding to said. And it's quite possible that there are multiple causes for job elimination. Automation eliminating classes of jobs being one, and menial jobs simply not paying enough to be worth it. You're not really talking about facts. You're quoting numbers, but not seeking to actually understand the numbers at all. This is illustrated greatly by your crack that poverty wages in the US would make someone "rich" in India. You're completely ignoring any and all context around that number.

antisthenes 10y ago

> automation has not eliminated jobs and that wealth transfers cause people to refuse to work. One of those statements is meaningless and the other is flat-out incorrect. Since you seem to have no education in economics aside from some libertarian drivel you picked up elsewhere (going only by your resume), I'll explain: 1. Automation has obviously not eliminated all jobs. It has eliminated some jobs, which have been partially or fully replaced by new, higher-skill jobs. There is an ongoing debate on how many of eliminated jobs get replaced and whether they get replaced in full at all. This isn't even an economic argument. 2. Welfare is a transfer of income, not wealth. Wealth is by and large capital, means of production and generally does not get transferred as it would be a violation of property rights - a literal theft of assets. Welfare occurs in the short term, whereas if you gave poor people stocks that were taken from investors - that would be a transfer of wealth. > I'm only arguing about facts in this piece. But your argument has nothing to do with automation. The arguments you presented give a case for some regulations being harmful to creating additional low-wage jobs.

crusso 10y ago
aside from some libertarian drivel you picked up elsewhere Please avoid these kinds of attacks on HN. Just make your case without making it personal. Thanks.
ThomPete 10y ago
Exactly. And taking a case of Uber where we remove the taxi medallions and where the endgame is complete automation it's obvious why even if it was trying to make that claim a very recents example shows it to more complicated than that.