5 ms·

Article has many holes in reasoning. The measurable trends of the past half-century, and the plausible projections for the next half-century, are just too empi

Article has many holes in reasoning. The measurable trends of the past half-century, and the plausible projections for the next half-century, are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as dismal science or ideological hokum As NN Taleb points out exhaustively: social science puts too much faith in their models. "Measurable" trends? How do we even know what to measure, or that it's a trend? "Plausible" projections? What is the scientific measure of plausibility? there’s not enough work to go around There's a limitless amount of work - it just doesn't pay minimum wage. Every time you lower the minimum wage, it makes a new class of activities profitable. you’ve just met an attractive stranger at a party, or you’re online looking for someone, anyone, but you don’t ask: ‘So, what do you do?’ This ubiquitous question may be asked and answered in the sense of "what are you passionate about" rather than "what is your largest source of income". It would be great if those co-incide, but that's often not the case.

drubenstein 10y ago
Agreed about the "many holes". Furthermore on the models But the bottom line is this. Most jobs aren’t created by private, corporate investment, so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment. This seems to be conjuring a whole new economic model out of thin air. How can it be the case that all of the models are wrong and that this model is right? I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but the preceding argumentation is not enough to support this line of thought.
- gabesullice 10y ago
  It's also just plain ridiculous. This would mean that most jobs are created by... sole proprietorships? If you're employed it's almost certainly by an LLC, LLP, 501(c)3, etc. These are corporations. The simple act of training an employee is itself investment. If you suddenly make the profit of this new hire less valuable, we're expected to believe that this won't mean a reduction in new hires, even at the margin?
kazagistar 10y ago
Limitless is not quite right: at some point, the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it. Of course, if we take away that constraint through some means, like for example basic income, then the same problem remains in a different form; the value of the work drops below the level that a human can be bothered to do it. Because this minimum exists, there is indeed a finite amount of work, and as machines drop the value of human labor in certain areas, there is potentially less and less of it available.
- reflexive 10y ago
  the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it I agree with this analysis; the question becomes: how do we value a person's contribution to society, if not by someone's willingness to pay their wages? I hope there is a solution in advanced tools for economic cooperation... imagine 90% of the population living off something like "GoFundMe for artists and educators". If we can't or won't find such an answer, we then have the question: how many lives are we willing to subsidize who are contributing, by our best measures, a net negative to society?
  - kazagistar 10y ago
    It never made sense to me that "contribution to society" would be measured by money earned; it functions more as if your vote was proportional to the money you had in your bank account (and of course, the rich vote to get more rich). It ends up being some kind of distorted limit instead of actually reflecting anything resembling the real will of society.
    - reflexive 10y ago
      It never made sense to me that "contribution to society" would be measured by money earned Think of it this way. I am willing to give you money, if you make a significant positive contribution to my life. I am willing to participate in a collective to scheme to give you money, if what you do helps people in a way I can appreciate. It's certainly a distorted signal, but better than no signal at all.

drubenstein 10y ago

Agreed about the "many holes". Furthermore on the models But the bottom line is this. Most jobs aren’t created by private, corporate investment, so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment. This seems to be conjuring a whole new economic model out of thin air. How can it be the case that all of the models are wrong and that this model is right? I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but the preceding argumentation is not enough to support this line of thought.

gabesullice 10y ago
It's also just plain ridiculous. This would mean that most jobs are created by... sole proprietorships? If you're employed it's almost certainly by an LLC, LLP, 501(c)3, etc. These are corporations. The simple act of training an employee is itself investment. If you suddenly make the profit of this new hire less valuable, we're expected to believe that this won't mean a reduction in new hires, even at the margin?

kazagistar 10y ago

Limitless is not quite right: at some point, the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it. Of course, if we take away that constraint through some means, like for example basic income, then the same problem remains in a different form; the value of the work drops below the level that a human can be bothered to do it. Because this minimum exists, there is indeed a finite amount of work, and as machines drop the value of human labor in certain areas, there is potentially less and less of it available.

reflexive 10y ago
the value of work drops below the level at which a human can subsist on it I agree with this analysis; the question becomes: how do we value a person's contribution to society, if not by someone's willingness to pay their wages? I hope there is a solution in advanced tools for economic cooperation... imagine 90% of the population living off something like "GoFundMe for artists and educators". If we can't or won't find such an answer, we then have the question: how many lives are we willing to subsidize who are contributing, by our best measures, a net negative to society?
- kazagistar 10y ago
  It never made sense to me that "contribution to society" would be measured by money earned; it functions more as if your vote was proportional to the money you had in your bank account (and of course, the rich vote to get more rich). It ends up being some kind of distorted limit instead of actually reflecting anything resembling the real will of society.
  - reflexive 10y ago
    It never made sense to me that "contribution to society" would be measured by money earned Think of it this way. I am willing to give you money, if you make a significant positive contribution to my life. I am willing to participate in a collective to scheme to give you money, if what you do helps people in a way I can appreciate. It's certainly a distorted signal, but better than no signal at all.