5 ms·

There isn't necessarily an economically sensible job for every single person,... Sure there is. Domestic labor (maid, cook, driver, servant) for more productiv

There isn't necessarily an economically sensible job for every single person,... Sure there is. Domestic labor (maid, cook, driver, servant) for more productive people. Mechanical turk. Selling loose cigarettes. Making tacos for people and selling them by the side of the road. We know that these are jobs people could possibly do because in India people actually do them. Americans just have the opportunity not to work, so they take that opportunity. This makes us all poorer. BI only makes the problem worse.

jclulow 10y ago
It's not really clear how having people "selling loose cigarettes" helps us all become richer. But that _is_ a perfect example of an invented, demeaning occupation that nobody needs to be doing. Just because somebody in another country might be trying to scrape together a living that way, because there are no better options, doesn't make it _good_. We're building better labour saving devices all the time, but that has a human cost. When the long haul trucking industry is inevitably automated, it's frankly callous and unfeeling to suggest that we'll all be richer by forcing those former drivers to become the domestic servants of "more productive people".
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Selling loose cigarettes provides convenience for folks who smoke rarely and don't want to carry a full pack. So does making tacos, cleaning houses, etc. We all become richer because we have more tacos, cleaner houses, etc. Wealth is goods and services. You seem to disagree with me about shared obligations; you think that some folks deserve to be able to live off the productive output of others and provide nothing in return. I think all people should contribute to society as best they are able - "from each according to his abilities" was an important part of Marxism. That's fine - just recognize that "I don't want people to work" is a very different claim from "there already aren't enough jobs to go around".
  - thatcat 10y ago
    Passive income is already 30% of income, with the majority going to the "productive class" via capital income [0]. These people still find ways to be productive and contribute despite their free time. People become addicted to things precisely when they don't have meaning in their lives. If you remove the obligation of their time to meaningless work, you give them an opportunity to find meaningful productivity which can be of greater benefit. The full quote is: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need!"[2]-Marx [0]https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/the-ubi-already-exists-for-the-1-d3a49fad0580#.ht5wz4ecy [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13303420 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs#Origin_of_the_phrase
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Many of those folks (typically called "retirees") are not currently productive. They have instead shifted consumption forward into the future - they were productive at age 30 but are now unproductive at age 70. But I'm a bit confused what this has to do with the 1%, who typically gain capital income by managing companies that they own. How is that unproductive?
      - thatcat 10y ago
        Which folks? Did you read the referenced article? 1% are those making most of the capital (passive) income so those were the productive passive earners I referred to. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        According to that article, 75% of capital income does not go to the rich. Significant chunks of capital income consist of (unrealized) increases in the appraised value of homes. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity. Is this really correct? Do you think that a trust fund baby would not become more productive if they lost their trust fund and needed to find a job? Do you really believe that exactly zero rich people choose not to work because they don't have to?
shitgoose 10y ago
"Sure there is. Domestic labor (maid, cook, driver, servant) for more productive people. Mechanical turk. Selling loose cigarettes. Making tacos for people and selling them by the side of the road." buddy, all these things are heavily licensed and regulated. selling loose cigarettes or tacos on a side of the road... that is jail time you are talking about. it is a lot safer to sit at home and collect government checks than to sell tacos without FDA approval. /sarc
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Very true. So perhaps regulatory reform, rather than BI, is the policy we should adopt.
  - jon-wood 10y ago
    I'm sure we're coming at this from very different perspectives but I can't quite understand how it would be better to reduce regulation on food safety than to give people enough income by default that they can eat and have a roof over their heads. At least from my perspective giving people a choice as to what they do is worlds better than forcing people to take (often multiple) unsatisfying, poorly paid, jobs just so they don't starve to death.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      There are plenty of people who are capable of making healthy food, but are simply banned by the current regulatory process. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15zachbrooks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15zachbrooks.html What safety do you believe that requiring 2250 hours of training to be a hair braider provides? http://madamenoire.com/501738/texas-federal-judge-rules-hair-braiding-laws-unconstitutional/ http://madamenoire.com/501738/texas-federal-judge-rules-hair... And why is a pack of cigarettes sold by a bodega somehow safer than a single cigarette sold by Eric Garner? I eat food that has not been blessed by American regulators all the time. Somehow, this didn't kill me: https://goo.gl/photos/ytKacsLvkxhqCnW18 https://goo.gl/photos/ytKacsLvkxhqCnW18
kbart 10y ago
"Domestic labor (maid, cook, driver, servant) for more productive people." Are you seriously suggesting to implement (or go back) to the class system we (thankfully) got rid off in modern West? You can get a job as a maid, cook, driver and even servant if you want to now, but forcing people to take such jobs would be just another form of slavery that benefits only a small group of already well-off people.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I don't propose forcing people to do anything. On the contrary, it's BI proponents who want to force me to work for people who prefer to be lazy. I'm proposing one class: the working class. It's BI proponents proposing to add a leisure class.
  - croon 10y ago
    Going one step further on your proposal leads to well off people doing nothing (leisure) and earning passive income on automation, and poor people doing made up serf jobs for scraps. I'm unsure how you don't see that end result.
  - kbart 10y ago
    "I'm proposing one class: the working class." That's also heard somewhere[0]. Didn't work out well either. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
  - eduren 10y ago
    >It's BI proponents proposing to add a leisure class Don't we already have a leisure class in the >1%? It may not represent a large portion of our population, but it does represent a large amount of wealth and income. Sure, there are still elements of the leisure class that spend time maximizing their income by working/investing, but its hard to call that a "job". If there's no risk of falling through and becoming insolvent, then I'd say it's more of a hobby focused on power/wealth accumulation.
dkersten 10y ago
There is limited demand for the jobs you list. If population continues to grow and automation continues to grow, I believe there will soon be more people than we need for domestic labor, mechanical turk, selling things on the roadside, fashion and entertainment, maintaining the automations, lawyers etc. Anyway, robots can sell cigarettes much cheaper than a person can. I don't think that inventing bullshit jobs (say an extra few layers in your local bureaucracy) is really a solution. I'd much rather everyone got a universal basic income and could focus their lives on something more useful like their families, or creativity and art or whatever the post-job-world will be about.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dkersten 10y ago
  Note also the submission about how routine jobs are disappearing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13310423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13310423
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I take it that since you believe there is no useful work to be done, you also oppose expanding the government and providing new services? Working women don't need child care, and should in fact be encouraged to stay home to reduce the demand for jobs? Infrastructure is not crumbling and in need of repair? That's what "no useful work" means.
  - dkersten 10y ago
    I didn't say that there was no useful work to be done. I said that I believe there to be a limit to how much there is and that I believe that, if automation continues to grow, that population will exceed how the amount of useful work. There will always be useful work to be done, but will there be enough for 7 billion people? What about 10 billion people? Especially as more routine work gets automated "away".

jclulow 10y ago

It's not really clear how having people "selling loose cigarettes" helps us all become richer. But that _is_ a perfect example of an invented, demeaning occupation that nobody needs to be doing. Just because somebody in another country might be trying to scrape together a living that way, because there are no better options, doesn't make it _good_. We're building better labour saving devices all the time, but that has a human cost. When the long haul trucking industry is inevitably automated, it's frankly callous and unfeeling to suggest that we'll all be richer by forcing those former drivers to become the domestic servants of "more productive people".

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Selling loose cigarettes provides convenience for folks who smoke rarely and don't want to carry a full pack. So does making tacos, cleaning houses, etc. We all become richer because we have more tacos, cleaner houses, etc. Wealth is goods and services. You seem to disagree with me about shared obligations; you think that some folks deserve to be able to live off the productive output of others and provide nothing in return. I think all people should contribute to society as best they are able - "from each according to his abilities" was an important part of Marxism. That's fine - just recognize that "I don't want people to work" is a very different claim from "there already aren't enough jobs to go around".
- thatcat 10y ago
  Passive income is already 30% of income, with the majority going to the "productive class" via capital income [0]. These people still find ways to be productive and contribute despite their free time. People become addicted to things precisely when they don't have meaning in their lives. If you remove the obligation of their time to meaningless work, you give them an opportunity to find meaningful productivity which can be of greater benefit. The full quote is: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need!"[2]-Marx [0]https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/the-ubi-already-exists-for-the-1-d3a49fad0580#.ht5wz4ecy [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13303420 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs#Origin_of_the_phrase
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Many of those folks (typically called "retirees") are not currently productive. They have instead shifted consumption forward into the future - they were productive at age 30 but are now unproductive at age 70. But I'm a bit confused what this has to do with the 1%, who typically gain capital income by managing companies that they own. How is that unproductive?
    - thatcat 10y ago
      Which folks? Did you read the referenced article? 1% are those making most of the capital (passive) income so those were the productive passive earners I referred to. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        According to that article, 75% of capital income does not go to the rich. Significant chunks of capital income consist of (unrealized) increases in the appraised value of homes. At this point, if they work, it's because they're choosing to - which is proof that passive income does not inherently slow productivity. Is this really correct? Do you think that a trust fund baby would not become more productive if they lost their trust fund and needed to find a job? Do you really believe that exactly zero rich people choose not to work because they don't have to?

shitgoose 10y ago

"Sure there is. Domestic labor (maid, cook, driver, servant) for more productive people. Mechanical turk. Selling loose cigarettes. Making tacos for people and selling them by the side of the road." buddy, all these things are heavily licensed and regulated. selling loose cigarettes or tacos on a side of the road... that is jail time you are talking about. it is a lot safer to sit at home and collect government checks than to sell tacos without FDA approval. /sarc

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Very true. So perhaps regulatory reform, rather than BI, is the policy we should adopt.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  I'm sure we're coming at this from very different perspectives but I can't quite understand how it would be better to reduce regulation on food safety than to give people enough income by default that they can eat and have a roof over their heads. At least from my perspective giving people a choice as to what they do is worlds better than forcing people to take (often multiple) unsatisfying, poorly paid, jobs just so they don't starve to death.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    There are plenty of people who are capable of making healthy food, but are simply banned by the current regulatory process. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15zachbrooks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15zachbrooks.html What safety do you believe that requiring 2250 hours of training to be a hair braider provides? http://madamenoire.com/501738/texas-federal-judge-rules-hair-braiding-laws-unconstitutional/ http://madamenoire.com/501738/texas-federal-judge-rules-hair... And why is a pack of cigarettes sold by a bodega somehow safer than a single cigarette sold by Eric Garner? I eat food that has not been blessed by American regulators all the time. Somehow, this didn't kill me: https://goo.gl/photos/ytKacsLvkxhqCnW18 https://goo.gl/photos/ytKacsLvkxhqCnW18

kbart 10y ago

"Domestic labor (maid, cook, driver, servant) for more productive people." Are you seriously suggesting to implement (or go back) to the class system we (thankfully) got rid off in modern West? You can get a job as a maid, cook, driver and even servant if you want to now, but forcing people to take such jobs would be just another form of slavery that benefits only a small group of already well-off people.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I don't propose forcing people to do anything. On the contrary, it's BI proponents who want to force me to work for people who prefer to be lazy. I'm proposing one class: the working class. It's BI proponents proposing to add a leisure class.
- croon 10y ago
  Going one step further on your proposal leads to well off people doing nothing (leisure) and earning passive income on automation, and poor people doing made up serf jobs for scraps. I'm unsure how you don't see that end result.
- kbart 10y ago
  "I'm proposing one class: the working class." That's also heard somewhere[0]. Didn't work out well either. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
- eduren 10y ago
  >It's BI proponents proposing to add a leisure class Don't we already have a leisure class in the >1%? It may not represent a large portion of our population, but it does represent a large amount of wealth and income. Sure, there are still elements of the leisure class that spend time maximizing their income by working/investing, but its hard to call that a "job". If there's no risk of falling through and becoming insolvent, then I'd say it's more of a hobby focused on power/wealth accumulation.

dkersten 10y ago

There is limited demand for the jobs you list. If population continues to grow and automation continues to grow, I believe there will soon be more people than we need for domestic labor, mechanical turk, selling things on the roadside, fashion and entertainment, maintaining the automations, lawyers etc. Anyway, robots can sell cigarettes much cheaper than a person can. I don't think that inventing bullshit jobs (say an extra few layers in your local bureaucracy) is really a solution. I'd much rather everyone got a universal basic income and could focus their lives on something more useful like their families, or creativity and art or whatever the post-job-world will be about.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dkersten 10y ago
Note also the submission about how routine jobs are disappearing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13310423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13310423
yummyfajitas 10y ago
I take it that since you believe there is no useful work to be done, you also oppose expanding the government and providing new services? Working women don't need child care, and should in fact be encouraged to stay home to reduce the demand for jobs? Infrastructure is not crumbling and in need of repair? That's what "no useful work" means.
- dkersten 10y ago
  I didn't say that there was no useful work to be done. I said that I believe there to be a limit to how much there is and that I believe that, if automation continues to grow, that population will exceed how the amount of useful work. There will always be useful work to be done, but will there be enough for 7 billion people? What about 10 billion people? Especially as more routine work gets automated "away".