5 ms·

Why aren't you "concerned" about people losing their jobs? The alternatives are tech companies start to pay their taxes and humans start to use tech to care fo

Why aren't you "concerned" about people losing their jobs? The alternatives are tech companies start to pay their taxes and humans start to use tech to care for one another, genuinely, not just wealthy Silicon Valley types trying to make buckets because their "entitled" to do so and pretend it's all in the name of progress. The idea of the Internet and Automation were exciting to me as it was about liberation and decentralisation, from where I'm sitting it's turning into a bit of a joke, it's just empowering those who own the tech and their not giving a whole lot back right now. Not attacking you personally, but this, attitude of "don't worry, those people who will be made redundant will be fine" thing is a myth, they will suffer and so will their families.

golergka 10y ago
A lot of comments like yours are based on the assumption of "giving back". I don't quite understand it. Let's suppose I've founded booking.com and put a LOT of travel agents out of business. At what point did I assume the responsibility of giving back to those travel agents? I agree that they are miserable because of my actions. However, in real life, nothing happens because of a single reason. They are also miserable because of free choice of their former customers, who abandoned them. Those customers have profited from the change too: after all, they chose me because of lower prices and better service. Why am I, and not the customers that left them, have this responsibility?
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >At what point did I assume the responsibility of giving back to those travel agents? You won't have to. If it gets bad enough, they'll come take it.
  - golergka 10y ago
    You are correct. However, this discussion operates on some level of abstraction, and you're jumping off it. It's like talking about eucledian geometry and then saying that no physical object is actually a single point, straight lines do not exist and parallel lines would collide due to space-time curvature.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  > At what point did I assume the responsibility of giving back to those travel agents? At the point when you started living in a peaceful and organized society, that depends on not many people having a disastrous future to keep being peaceful and organized.
  - golergka 10y ago
    This is true. However, this is taken care of by basic taxes and welfare. (Judging by my experience with HN discussions, this usually leads to talking about how US doesn't have enough welfare net; I want to point out that this is not the topic of the conversation). So let me ask you a question — when we discuss this "back" direction, would you include someone who's been living on this welfare net for all of this life in it? Someone who purposefully declined to contribute anything to the society? The very phrase "to give back" implies that we're giving to someone who gave us something before — and this hypothetical Joe sure as hell didn't give anything to us. * Since my question is purely rhetorical, let me answer to it to get to the point. I don't think that you would include him in "giving back". And yet, we keep him (or at least, me and you agree that we should try) fed and alive to some degree. So, this whole notion about "giving back" is something different from keeping this hypothetical Joe alive. What is it, exactly? ___ * This paragraph may sound similar to typical right-wing propaganda about lazy people living on welfare. However, it is only a hypothetical example to prove a point. I'm not making any statements about real people in it.
    - turar 10y ago
      Joe is part of the society, to which you're "giving back". Hypothetically, it's impossible to separate hypothetical Joe from hypothetical Jane who was recently born with severe disabilities and also didn't contribute jack shit, or a WW2 veteran, who is now unable to work. So you "give back" to all three. Not hypothetically, and noting that you explicitly stated you didn't want to discuss factual reality, nonetheless: such hypothetical Joes are rare to nonexistent in the US post Clinton welfare reform.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  Your successful web business would be a very small event at the end of an innumerably long causal chain involving billions of humans and tens of thousands of years [1]. Can you name every event that would have enabled you to be ready to create the business, and all aspects of the world that would allow for its success? It's impossible. This is why we have to give back. [1] We could obviously go back further, but it becomes less meaningful in the context of this discussion.
  - golergka 10y ago
    > This is why we have to give back. OK, so how do you determine where "back" is? Why is "back" in pockets of people being laid off and not on an altar of Cthulhu? By your logic, we never would be able to know the reason anyway, so giving to the Dark One seems to be just as reasonable.
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      Humans don't naturally have any empathy for Cthulhu, and science leads us to believe there is no such thing. Thus, I doubt most people would find that very reasonable. Determining where, how, and to what extent is a much harder question. I don't have any easy answers there. At the very least, recognizing how the indifferent hand of fortune plays an immense role in all of our lives nudges suggests that helping those who have less is a great place to start.
      - golergka 10y ago
        Helping unfortunates is a great thing indeed. But the original idea was different: it was about "giving back". Can you spot the difference?
        dwaltrip 10y ago
        What's a better way to give back? Of course, we should do so in a way that helps all. However, even if we distribute help in a totally blind fashion, a single "unit of help" given to those who have less will comprise a larger percentage of their "life capital" (opportunity, potential, resources, etc, for lack of a better term) than a unit of help given to someone who is in a better position. So both the perceived and real impact will be higher for the less fortunate. Once we have managed to gather a shared set of resources (of course, there will be much grumbling and immense disagreements about the exact amounts), how should it be utilized? Certainly, you aren't suggesting we give a larger share to those who already have more. If you are worried about the disincentive to contribute upon receiving help, remember, this whole sub-thread started in the context of businesses making use of new, advanced automation technologies and placing large swaths of people out of work. What if the value of labor for a large percentage of the citizenry really does fall to unemployable levels due to technology? Should we "make up" jobs for them? Let them starve? Why does the person who can afford to buy an army of robots deserve all of the proceeds? They didn't invent the robots, it took thousands of years and billions of human lives toiling in the dirt for such incredible technology to enter the world. It isn't impossible to strike balance between helping those who have less, and allowing those who are skilled and make large contributions to be richly rewarded. And even if many people become somewhat unemployable, society can choose to encourage living productive, engaged lives. We don't need to become zombies hiding in our houses playing video games all day or binge watching netflix non-stop. People still will want to be fulfilled. There is much we can do to promote fulfilling, productive lifestyles and vibrant communities.
zaroth 10y ago
Consider a broader timeline. It used to take humans over 500 hours of labor spinning, weaving, and sewing to produce a single shirt. Automating textile production has "put more people out of work" than computers ever will. Do you think for a second we would ever want to go back to how it was? Do you ask the inventor of the sewing machine how they will start giving back? These inventions free humanity for more worthwhile endeavors. Nobody will look back after the next great transition and wish we just had more humans driving trucks around the country. It would be utter lunacy. And the people who created the self-driving machines will be seen as liberators of human potential and ushers of a new era of productivity. So it is, same as it ever was.
- brokenmasonjars 10y ago
  I often feel what will replace jobs is people just going to school and earning a PhD or two or three. It'll certainly destroy their idle time of unemployment and make them and everyone else - the collective a whole lot smarter. Perhaps subspecialties emerge with dual-PhDs. I often hear that not everyone is capable of getting a PhD, but then again if we take the same energy and dedication of a career and push it over into education I think plenty have the capability. I often consider myself exhibit A so to speak since I got my GED and was working three low end jobs (line cook, gas station attendant and construction worker) until I bounced out of the workforce and pursued my PhD in Public Policy. I'm sort of playing around with undergrad level math now as I prepare for a second PhD. Seriously think if I could manage at least one PhD anyone else could easily manage 2 or 3.
  - jmickey 10y ago
    OK, but is there a demand for so many PhDs? Having a PhD doesn't really guarantee a good income now. It will be worse once everyone has one. This makes sense, if there is some sort of government sponsorship or grants, but providing these to all people would mean drastically higher taxes, and companies are opposed to those.
    - brokenmasonjars 10y ago
statsknowitall 10y ago
Are tech companies not paying taxes on money earned in the US? I have heard they are using tax havens to avoid paying taxes in the EU, and keeping that money overseas to delay paying US taxes on it.
imtringued 10y ago
They are giving back. If clothes used to cost $60 and now cost $20 that is equivalent to giving back $40. The problem starts when their wages are falling faster than the cost of the goods. If as a employee you earn $20 per hour you need to work 3 hours to afford your own clothes and now only earn $5 per hour you need to work 4 hours.

golergka 10y ago

A lot of comments like yours are based on the assumption of "giving back". I don't quite understand it. Let's suppose I've founded booking.com and put a LOT of travel agents out of business. At what point did I assume the responsibility of giving back to those travel agents? I agree that they are miserable because of my actions. However, in real life, nothing happens because of a single reason. They are also miserable because of free choice of their former customers, who abandoned them. Those customers have profited from the change too: after all, they chose me because of lower prices and better service. Why am I, and not the customers that left them, have this responsibility?

forgetsusername 10y ago
>At what point did I assume the responsibility of giving back to those travel agents? You won't have to. If it gets bad enough, they'll come take it.
- golergka 10y ago
  You are correct. However, this discussion operates on some level of abstraction, and you're jumping off it. It's like talking about eucledian geometry and then saying that no physical object is actually a single point, straight lines do not exist and parallel lines would collide due to space-time curvature.
marcosdumay 10y ago
> At what point did I assume the responsibility of giving back to those travel agents? At the point when you started living in a peaceful and organized society, that depends on not many people having a disastrous future to keep being peaceful and organized.
- golergka 10y ago
  This is true. However, this is taken care of by basic taxes and welfare. (Judging by my experience with HN discussions, this usually leads to talking about how US doesn't have enough welfare net; I want to point out that this is not the topic of the conversation). So let me ask you a question — when we discuss this "back" direction, would you include someone who's been living on this welfare net for all of this life in it? Someone who purposefully declined to contribute anything to the society? The very phrase "to give back" implies that we're giving to someone who gave us something before — and this hypothetical Joe sure as hell didn't give anything to us. * Since my question is purely rhetorical, let me answer to it to get to the point. I don't think that you would include him in "giving back". And yet, we keep him (or at least, me and you agree that we should try) fed and alive to some degree. So, this whole notion about "giving back" is something different from keeping this hypothetical Joe alive. What is it, exactly? ___ * This paragraph may sound similar to typical right-wing propaganda about lazy people living on welfare. However, it is only a hypothetical example to prove a point. I'm not making any statements about real people in it.
  - turar 10y ago
    Joe is part of the society, to which you're "giving back". Hypothetically, it's impossible to separate hypothetical Joe from hypothetical Jane who was recently born with severe disabilities and also didn't contribute jack shit, or a WW2 veteran, who is now unable to work. So you "give back" to all three. Not hypothetically, and noting that you explicitly stated you didn't want to discuss factual reality, nonetheless: such hypothetical Joes are rare to nonexistent in the US post Clinton welfare reform.
dwaltrip 10y ago
Your successful web business would be a very small event at the end of an innumerably long causal chain involving billions of humans and tens of thousands of years [1]. Can you name every event that would have enabled you to be ready to create the business, and all aspects of the world that would allow for its success? It's impossible. This is why we have to give back. [1] We could obviously go back further, but it becomes less meaningful in the context of this discussion.
- golergka 10y ago
  > This is why we have to give back. OK, so how do you determine where "back" is? Why is "back" in pockets of people being laid off and not on an altar of Cthulhu? By your logic, we never would be able to know the reason anyway, so giving to the Dark One seems to be just as reasonable.
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    Humans don't naturally have any empathy for Cthulhu, and science leads us to believe there is no such thing. Thus, I doubt most people would find that very reasonable. Determining where, how, and to what extent is a much harder question. I don't have any easy answers there. At the very least, recognizing how the indifferent hand of fortune plays an immense role in all of our lives nudges suggests that helping those who have less is a great place to start.
    - golergka 10y ago
      Helping unfortunates is a great thing indeed. But the original idea was different: it was about "giving back". Can you spot the difference?
      - dwaltrip 10y ago
        What's a better way to give back? Of course, we should do so in a way that helps all. However, even if we distribute help in a totally blind fashion, a single "unit of help" given to those who have less will comprise a larger percentage of their "life capital" (opportunity, potential, resources, etc, for lack of a better term) than a unit of help given to someone who is in a better position. So both the perceived and real impact will be higher for the less fortunate. Once we have managed to gather a shared set of resources (of course, there will be much grumbling and immense disagreements about the exact amounts), how should it be utilized? Certainly, you aren't suggesting we give a larger share to those who already have more. If you are worried about the disincentive to contribute upon receiving help, remember, this whole sub-thread started in the context of businesses making use of new, advanced automation technologies and placing large swaths of people out of work. What if the value of labor for a large percentage of the citizenry really does fall to unemployable levels due to technology? Should we "make up" jobs for them? Let them starve? Why does the person who can afford to buy an army of robots deserve all of the proceeds? They didn't invent the robots, it took thousands of years and billions of human lives toiling in the dirt for such incredible technology to enter the world. It isn't impossible to strike balance between helping those who have less, and allowing those who are skilled and make large contributions to be richly rewarded. And even if many people become somewhat unemployable, society can choose to encourage living productive, engaged lives. We don't need to become zombies hiding in our houses playing video games all day or binge watching netflix non-stop. People still will want to be fulfilled. There is much we can do to promote fulfilling, productive lifestyles and vibrant communities.

zaroth 10y ago

Consider a broader timeline. It used to take humans over 500 hours of labor spinning, weaving, and sewing to produce a single shirt. Automating textile production has "put more people out of work" than computers ever will. Do you think for a second we would ever want to go back to how it was? Do you ask the inventor of the sewing machine how they will start giving back? These inventions free humanity for more worthwhile endeavors. Nobody will look back after the next great transition and wish we just had more humans driving trucks around the country. It would be utter lunacy. And the people who created the self-driving machines will be seen as liberators of human potential and ushers of a new era of productivity. So it is, same as it ever was.

brokenmasonjars 10y ago
I often feel what will replace jobs is people just going to school and earning a PhD or two or three. It'll certainly destroy their idle time of unemployment and make them and everyone else - the collective a whole lot smarter. Perhaps subspecialties emerge with dual-PhDs. I often hear that not everyone is capable of getting a PhD, but then again if we take the same energy and dedication of a career and push it over into education I think plenty have the capability. I often consider myself exhibit A so to speak since I got my GED and was working three low end jobs (line cook, gas station attendant and construction worker) until I bounced out of the workforce and pursued my PhD in Public Policy. I'm sort of playing around with undergrad level math now as I prepare for a second PhD. Seriously think if I could manage at least one PhD anyone else could easily manage 2 or 3.
- jmickey 10y ago
  OK, but is there a demand for so many PhDs? Having a PhD doesn't really guarantee a good income now. It will be worse once everyone has one. This makes sense, if there is some sort of government sponsorship or grants, but providing these to all people would mean drastically higher taxes, and companies are opposed to those.
  - brokenmasonjars 10y ago

statsknowitall 10y ago

Are tech companies not paying taxes on money earned in the US? I have heard they are using tax havens to avoid paying taxes in the EU, and keeping that money overseas to delay paying US taxes on it.

imtringued 10y ago

They are giving back. If clothes used to cost $60 and now cost $20 that is equivalent to giving back $40. The problem starts when their wages are falling faster than the cost of the goods. If as a employee you earn $20 per hour you need to work 3 hours to afford your own clothes and now only earn $5 per hour you need to work 4 hours.