3 ms·

> but that doesn't mean there is an infinite source of jobs if we just try hard enough. Job = Time. As long as human beings can use their muscles and brains in

by tn13 10y ago

> but that doesn't mean there is an infinite source of jobs if we just try hard enough. Job = Time. As long as human beings can use their muscles and brains in the time to change outcome of some events and as long as people vary in their ability to do so, I think jobs will always exist.

jjoonathan 10y ago
It's not about jobs existing, it's about <world population> jobs existing at <good enough pay to survive and thrive>. We're far from that point now, so how am I supposed to take comfort in a technical argument that it won't get worse than <much worse than it is now>?
- taneq 10y ago
  There's also the factor of those jobs being more effectively performed by humans than by machines.
  - tn13 10y ago
    That is a good outcome. If machines are good at a job that means human capital can be diverted to something more better and important.
- tn13 10y ago
  > good enough pay That term is meaningless. An Indian would be happy to get $12 per day when Americans complain about it being minimum wage. If your point is that some people will earn significantly less that others then I think you are true but I dont see why that is a problem. The bottom 5% in USA today are living lives much better than middle class Americans of 1917. There will always be bottom 5% but what matters is how they compare with the bottom 5% of 100 years back. As long as that is positive I think thats a very good outcome.
  - jjoonathan 10y ago
    > That term is meaningless. Precision of the sort you seem to be after would come at the cost of inviting people to bicker over where exactly the line should be drawn, when the precise location of the line is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. > An Indian would be happy to get $12 per day when Americans complain about it being minimum wage. Looks like you didn't need an invitation. Don't let me stop you. The rabbit hole of defining "good enough pay to survive and thrive" goes much deeper than conditioning on geography. > If your point is that some people will earn significantly less that others then I think you are true but I dont see why that is a problem. You're still just putting words in my mouth. > There will always be bottom 5% but what matters is how they compare with the bottom 5% of 100 years back. As long as that is positive I think thats a very good outcome. Quite right. The problem is that while the news is positive in aggregate, a large pocket of people have experienced a severe regression in the quality of their social contract, and we have good reason to fear that the phenomenon will spread. History counts in the market's favor, but past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

by tn13 10y ago

jjoonathan 10y ago

It's not about jobs existing, it's about <world population> jobs existing at <good enough pay to survive and thrive>. We're far from that point now, so how am I supposed to take comfort in a technical argument that it won't get worse than <much worse than it is now>?

taneq 10y ago
There's also the factor of those jobs being more effectively performed by humans than by machines.
- tn13 10y ago
  That is a good outcome. If machines are good at a job that means human capital can be diverted to something more better and important.
tn13 10y ago
> good enough pay That term is meaningless. An Indian would be happy to get $12 per day when Americans complain about it being minimum wage. If your point is that some people will earn significantly less that others then I think you are true but I dont see why that is a problem. The bottom 5% in USA today are living lives much better than middle class Americans of 1917. There will always be bottom 5% but what matters is how they compare with the bottom 5% of 100 years back. As long as that is positive I think thats a very good outcome.
- jjoonathan 10y ago
  > That term is meaningless. Precision of the sort you seem to be after would come at the cost of inviting people to bicker over where exactly the line should be drawn, when the precise location of the line is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. > An Indian would be happy to get $12 per day when Americans complain about it being minimum wage. Looks like you didn't need an invitation. Don't let me stop you. The rabbit hole of defining "good enough pay to survive and thrive" goes much deeper than conditioning on geography. > If your point is that some people will earn significantly less that others then I think you are true but I dont see why that is a problem. You're still just putting words in my mouth. > There will always be bottom 5% but what matters is how they compare with the bottom 5% of 100 years back. As long as that is positive I think thats a very good outcome. Quite right. The problem is that while the news is positive in aggregate, a large pocket of people have experienced a severe regression in the quality of their social contract, and we have good reason to fear that the phenomenon will spread. History counts in the market's favor, but past performance is no guarantee of future returns.