4 ms·

It's a real possibility, but consider thinking about it this way: Many jobs do not provide (marginal utility > income) to society, and many even produce negativ

It's a real possibility, but consider thinking about it this way: Many jobs do not provide (marginal utility > income) to society, and many even produce negative marginal utility. Everything from utility companies to the financial sector to government to even academia has a heck of a lot of perverse incentives and corruption. Over half a century ago John Maynard Keynes--one of the most influential intellectuals to shape the world today--said "it's better for people to toil over their bank account than each other." I would easily wager it's better people toil over their virtual realities than their bank accounts, provided we're able to keep the scarcity problem solved (which I'd bet we'd be able to pull off).

pbkhrv 10y ago
> provided we're able to keep the scarcity problem solved (which I'd bet we'd be able to pull off). I'm curious as to how we can pull that off given that an ever increasing percentage of young smart capable people are opting out of solving real world problems in favor of "toiling over their virtual realities"...
- psyc 10y ago
  I really dislike the romanticizing of employment as "solving problems." The effect of employment is that somebody's problems get solved, but as the employee, they aren't my problems, and subjectively it feels like mostly solving a lot of meta-problems like how to follow somebody else's process and get along with all kinds of coworkers. If employment felt like object-level problem solving, I'd be employed.
  - pbkhrv 10y ago
    I'm with you, to some degree. By "solving problems" I was referring to the parent comment's phrase "provided we're able to keep the scarcity problem solved", which I read as "let (vague, unidentified) them solve the scarcity problem while I play video games".
  - kcdev 10y ago
    Your objective is to get a paycheck. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Then, use your off time do things more important to you.
    - projektir 10y ago
      Getting that paycheck saps the majority of the time and energy of a given person. Using a paycheck as a side effect to actually do something useful seems like a very strange system.
      - kcdev 10y ago
        It's the capitalist system. If you want to set the objective, then get to work and create the means for yourself to do so. It's so easy to blame the boomers, but in my day job, all I see are younger people who expect a promotion after 6 months, while the boomers are happy to have a job, come in, do what's expected, and don't complain.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  Because technology give us massive leverage. The economic opportunities aren't going away, and to the extent that we still need labor, compensation will adapt to what makes it worth an individual's time.
graeme 10y ago
> Many jobs do not provide (marginal utility > income) to society, and many even produce negative marginal utility. What are some examples of this? Why are people paying those workers?
- Untit1ed 10y ago
  A lot of middlemen roles - real estate agents, recruiters etc fall into this. The role starts out with utility (instead of selling your house yourself get someone experienced to do it!), but as using a middleman becomes ubiquitous and is maintained with rent seeking (you can't list on this real estate site unless you're a registered RE agent), there's no reason for them to do anything more than the bare minimum.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >Why are people paying those workers? In short, in modern, mainstream economic theory the ideas that explain this are what's called Market Failures. In 2001, the Nobel Prize in economics went to people who studied information asymmetries, which lead to market failures. A concrete and classic example is the Tragedy of the Commons. My earlier example of the financial sector, which in 2008 showed everyone how private gains created public losses in the form of subsidies, recession, inflation, bail-outs, moral hazard, public-sector risk, was created despite (and many argue in part, because) of government-oversight. Another, more benign example, is one I was reminded of while on vacation in France. A toilet bloc was guarded by an unhappy attendant who took 1 euro per use. It would be better to install a 100euro toll gate and give her the remaining profit to buy a computer to play video games (or art supplies, whatever she wants to do), in the hours between cleanings. Everyone wins. This is what's called pareto-efficient. Someone is made better off and no one is made worse off (tourists don't need to encounter an unhappy attendant, either).
  - graeme 10y ago
    How would UBI solve this? If the jobs were still profitable to the employer, they'd be done. It's not clear to me how UBI solves market failures.

pbkhrv 10y ago

> provided we're able to keep the scarcity problem solved (which I'd bet we'd be able to pull off). I'm curious as to how we can pull that off given that an ever increasing percentage of young smart capable people are opting out of solving real world problems in favor of "toiling over their virtual realities"...

psyc 10y ago
I really dislike the romanticizing of employment as "solving problems." The effect of employment is that somebody's problems get solved, but as the employee, they aren't my problems, and subjectively it feels like mostly solving a lot of meta-problems like how to follow somebody else's process and get along with all kinds of coworkers. If employment felt like object-level problem solving, I'd be employed.
- pbkhrv 10y ago
  I'm with you, to some degree. By "solving problems" I was referring to the parent comment's phrase "provided we're able to keep the scarcity problem solved", which I read as "let (vague, unidentified) them solve the scarcity problem while I play video games".
- kcdev 10y ago
  Your objective is to get a paycheck. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Then, use your off time do things more important to you.
  - projektir 10y ago
    Getting that paycheck saps the majority of the time and energy of a given person. Using a paycheck as a side effect to actually do something useful seems like a very strange system.
    - kcdev 10y ago
      It's the capitalist system. If you want to set the objective, then get to work and create the means for yourself to do so. It's so easy to blame the boomers, but in my day job, all I see are younger people who expect a promotion after 6 months, while the boomers are happy to have a job, come in, do what's expected, and don't complain.
acjohnson55 10y ago
Because technology give us massive leverage. The economic opportunities aren't going away, and to the extent that we still need labor, compensation will adapt to what makes it worth an individual's time.

graeme 10y ago

> Many jobs do not provide (marginal utility > income) to society, and many even produce negative marginal utility. What are some examples of this? Why are people paying those workers?

Untit1ed 10y ago
A lot of middlemen roles - real estate agents, recruiters etc fall into this. The role starts out with utility (instead of selling your house yourself get someone experienced to do it!), but as using a middleman becomes ubiquitous and is maintained with rent seeking (you can't list on this real estate site unless you're a registered RE agent), there's no reason for them to do anything more than the bare minimum.
wallace_f 10y ago
>Why are people paying those workers? In short, in modern, mainstream economic theory the ideas that explain this are what's called Market Failures. In 2001, the Nobel Prize in economics went to people who studied information asymmetries, which lead to market failures. A concrete and classic example is the Tragedy of the Commons. My earlier example of the financial sector, which in 2008 showed everyone how private gains created public losses in the form of subsidies, recession, inflation, bail-outs, moral hazard, public-sector risk, was created despite (and many argue in part, because) of government-oversight. Another, more benign example, is one I was reminded of while on vacation in France. A toilet bloc was guarded by an unhappy attendant who took 1 euro per use. It would be better to install a 100euro toll gate and give her the remaining profit to buy a computer to play video games (or art supplies, whatever she wants to do), in the hours between cleanings. Everyone wins. This is what's called pareto-efficient. Someone is made better off and no one is made worse off (tourists don't need to encounter an unhappy attendant, either).
- graeme 10y ago
  How would UBI solve this? If the jobs were still profitable to the employer, they'd be done. It's not clear to me how UBI solves market failures.