7 ms·

The goon category is interesting in a future world where AI has replaced most jobs, because it can employ an unlimited number of people. (Goon jobs exist to cou

by tlb 9y ago

The goon category is interesting in a future world where AI has replaced most jobs, because it can employ an unlimited number of people. (Goon jobs exist to counterbalance other goon jobs. Militaries are the canonical example.) Most jobs -- teachers, auto workers, plumbers, farmers -- have a natural ceiling on employment related to demand, but goon jobs don't because when one side hires more goons, the other side has to also. Militaries have created millions of jobs this way. Goon jobs are not just blue-collar. A growing category of goon that allows unlimited highly paid professional job creation is inter-governmental lawyers. For example, the CA government is suing the EPA about vehicle emissions limits. Both sides can justify a big budget for hiring lawyers. Metropolitan areas like the Bay Area provide lots of opportunities for cities to sue each other, transit authorities, and the state. I don't see any upper limit to the number of jobs this can create. All this is only a bad thing if you care about efficiency. If you let go of that axiom, there are unlimited jobs to be created.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mfoy_ 9y ago
I die inside. But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and mincome? Is it just that one is too obviously a subsidy?
- lmm 9y ago
  The protestant work ethic is still there - the notion that a difficult job is better for the person doing it than an easier job with the same pay.
  - Filligree 9y ago
    Depending on the definition of "difficulty", and the type of person, I'm not sure they're wrong. We're all engineers here. Can you honestly say you'd prefer a job that paid the same, but where you wouldn't have to use your mind? Of course, it's been used to justify some serious horrors.
- _rpd 9y ago
  I honestly don't think it would be a bad thing if there were ten times as many lawyers, so that the cost of using the legal system became affordable to the vast majority of the people living under it.
  - some_account 9y ago
    Talking about America? Look at other countries for a better solution. :)
    - mac01021 9y ago
      Which ones?
      - adrian_mrd 9y ago
        Antarctica ;)
    - _rpd 9y ago
      I think it generalizes. Having a personal advocate will almost always yield a better personal solution than even a well intentioned bureaucrat. The law is complex, and the ability to afford a personal advocate is a very sharp privilege. I think I've even seen this dynamic at play in international negotiations, with poorer countries being swamped by the experienced legal teams of larger countries, or being forced to effectively delegate their authority to an NGO that maintains a competitive legal team.
- mac01021 9y ago
  Goons are often highly skilled and highly compensated. So that's one difference.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  I talk to people about changing the world so work is optional, and people are really attached to the idea that everyone should work all the time. Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. Or more conservatively, we could build a world where everyone has 8 weeks of vacation a year or could take 6 months off every few years. I believe this is doable from a technical perspective and it’s the problem I’m trying to devote my life to. We ultimately need to build optional societies where people who choose to join can opt out of consumerism, a major driver of our need for endless work. My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival. Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community. I think something like that in the future is one very useful aspect of a society where unnecessary work is over and regular people get to enjoy the benefits of modern productivity (instead of a small percentage of the population enjoying that while most people miss out). But in general when I talk to people I find that the hardest idea for them to grasp is the idea that we could all work less and things wouldn’t collapse. We just need to alter the distribution of wealth so that everyone benefits.
  - _rpd 9y ago
    You might be interested in Marcin Jakubowski's work ... https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/ https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/
  - leetcrew 9y ago
    > Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. i realize that the rest of your post details technological advancements that could create this condition (on an indefinite timeline), but you also seem to be saying that it is already possible today. i often see this sort of claim these days, and i always wonder why this is treated as self evident fact. in 2015, the PPP adjusted GDP per capita over the entire planet was just under $16k [1]. this is only 125% of the US poverty line for a single person in the same year [2]. even if we could deliver this sum to every person in the world without losing production capacity and with no administrative cost, it hardly seems enough to provide what you mean by a "modest living" to everyone. much closer to mere subsistence in a developed nation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... [2] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
- closeparen 9y ago
  Hazing, austerity, and rigor. The military certainly cannot be accused of making soldiers more comfortable than taxpayers, and that’s what they really care about. Whether they’re deployed to economicically productive ends is more of an academic concern. On a gut level, the public needs to feel that they are not paid to be lazy, and the military delivers with overwhelming gusto. Lawyers may similarly be accused of evil, but rarely laziness. There’s a general perception that they’ve passed through a crucible we wouldn’t survive (law school) and do work we couldn’t hack. Other bureaucrats, not so much.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    Lawyers can be horribly lazy. "let's just wait for a reaction, if we are lucky, nothings gonna come." "Let's just threaten with outrageous claims instead of making an effort." "We know the law is wrong but it's easier to roll with it than to fix it or find a way around it."
- ngvrnd 9y ago
  well... one way, you have goons, the other way, you have livers. The problem with mincome is the hedonic treadmill. the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary.
  - naravara 9y ago
    >the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary. Close. What it does is reduces supply (fewer people working) while raising demand (people with more money in their pockets). This winds up causing inflation that erodes away the value of the minimum income. It's not even a hedonic treadmill, just an inflationary one. A basic income guarantee can only ever work as temporary assistance or as a residualist stopgap for people on the fringes of society. If it's too widespread it ends up working against itself. A job guarantee increases supply (assuming you use the labor power productively) while keeping demand high, so that works against the inflation problem. It's a tough balancing act though. You have to make sure the make-work is actually producing useful stuff or you'll have all the same problems as the basic income plus a bunch of random ditches dug. During Cultural Revolution in China cadres kind of engendered ecological catastrophes by creating bureaucratic agencies that would pointlessly clearcut forests for no reason. It's basically the paper-clip maximizing AI problem, only the intelligence isn't artificial.
- colonelpopcorn 9y ago
  Because at least in the goon economy you can compete in a hierarchy and be differentiated by status. "I have made X number of lawsuits/wars/security details successful which is more than Billy who only has Y number of successful lawsuits/wars/security details and that's why I should get a bonus and he shouldn't." sounds better than "I have exactly the same amount of income as Billy, but I should have more than he does because I think I'm better than Billy." Yes, there are other ways to differentiate yourself in a social hierarchy, but finding a new and novel way to live is a lot harder than continuing to live the same way humans have lived for centuries.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
Advertising is a very typical arms race. If you're the only one advertising, a small cheap ad is very effective. If your competitor is advertising you have to spend just as much just to tread water. If you spend more, it forces your competitors to spend more too. It's not surprising that the modern Silicon Valley economy is built on advertising.
- badpun 9y ago
  To give an example of that - my friend runs a one-man internet shop, selling niche items. His monthly profit is around (an equivalent of) $1-2k, while his Google invoice is $7k$-10k. So, essentially most of the fruits of his labor go to Google. And, according to him, if he tried spending less on advertising, he'd just vanish from the face of the Internet and customers would buy at his competitors.
- RealityVoid 9y ago
  I've been thinking the exact same thing lately! There is also in there somewhere a nice paralel to proof of work.
- tabtab 9y ago
  Peddling buzzwords and tech fads has made some bigly rich.
itronitron 9y ago
cyber-xyz is the other new white-collar goon job
almost_usual 9y ago
I think it's interesting this category is simply defined as "goon". This really has been the definition of our entire existence as a species. We have competitors and if they take our resources we attempt to kill them off. Even today the military encompasses the largest industry in the world. All of the technology we use has been rooted in the Military. Engineering Departments everywhere are subsidized by the Military more than any other department because they know anything you engineer has the potential as a "goon" application. I don't think "goon" is going away anytime soon, it's a core part of our evolution as a species.
- musage 9y ago
  humans came this far by cooperating and sharing in harsh environments just as much if not more more so by than fighting each other.
21 9y ago
Most future goons will be robots too. For both practical and political reasons (dead soldiers are not so cool).
Qub3d 9y ago
"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment." -Warren Bennis
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>All this is only a bad thing if you care about efficiency. If you let go of that axiom, there are unlimited jobs to be created. Oh cool, we invented almost-basic income.
AmericanChopper 9y ago
The analogy to the army isn’t a very good one. It’s not a zero sum situation. A country can only devote so much of its GDP to the army, so the country with the biggest economy ends up with the biggest army. You don’t end up with 195 armies of equal size. The other thing that it misses is that the army is intentionally a vehicle for social mobility, and perhaps the most efficient one at that. The army is available to most people, where they can make a good career for themselves, or learn skills to take to the private sector, or move onto highly subsidized college. Dismissing it as bullshit is pretty narrow minded.
- gaius 9y ago
  the country with the biggest economy ends up with the biggest army But that isn’t true. Look at the size of the North Korean army.
  - AmericanChopper 9y ago
    Are you actually suggesting that it’s larger than the US army?
    - gaius 9y ago
      US Army 476,000 regulars, North Korea 1.1M. So yes, twice as big in terms of people.
      - AmericanChopper 9y ago
        You're comparing the entire NK armed forces to one US branch. The entire USA armed forces is about 1.3M active personnel, with about 800K reserves. Which the US manages to achieve without conscription or slavery. If you also consider equipment and vehicles (which you absolutely should), then NK is not even remotely close. The number of naval ships, air crafts, tanks, armored combat vehicles, APCs, UAVs , etc... that the US has is so far ahead of any other country that it's not even worth trying to draw a comparison. You've made an overstated example of a single outlier. There's outliers at the other end too, with both countries that are too dysfunctional to have any national security at all, and countries that simply ride the coattails of their stronger allies. In any case, this is all entirely irrelevant to my point, which is that armed forces do contribute measurable value to society, and that the level of investment in them is typically proportional to the level of security a country requires.

by tlb 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mfoy_ 9y ago

I die inside. But any suggestion of "mincome" or the like is met with such a harsh reaction... What, effectively, is the difference between goon-bloom and mincome? Is it just that one is too obviously a subsidy?

lmm 9y ago
The protestant work ethic is still there - the notion that a difficult job is better for the person doing it than an easier job with the same pay.
- Filligree 9y ago
  Depending on the definition of "difficulty", and the type of person, I'm not sure they're wrong. We're all engineers here. Can you honestly say you'd prefer a job that paid the same, but where you wouldn't have to use your mind? Of course, it's been used to justify some serious horrors.
_rpd 9y ago
I honestly don't think it would be a bad thing if there were ten times as many lawyers, so that the cost of using the legal system became affordable to the vast majority of the people living under it.
- some_account 9y ago
  Talking about America? Look at other countries for a better solution. :)
  - mac01021 9y ago
    Which ones?
    - adrian_mrd 9y ago
      Antarctica ;)
  - _rpd 9y ago
    I think it generalizes. Having a personal advocate will almost always yield a better personal solution than even a well intentioned bureaucrat. The law is complex, and the ability to afford a personal advocate is a very sharp privilege. I think I've even seen this dynamic at play in international negotiations, with poorer countries being swamped by the experienced legal teams of larger countries, or being forced to effectively delegate their authority to an NGO that maintains a competitive legal team.
mac01021 9y ago
Goons are often highly skilled and highly compensated. So that's one difference.
TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I talk to people about changing the world so work is optional, and people are really attached to the idea that everyone should work all the time. Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. Or more conservatively, we could build a world where everyone has 8 weeks of vacation a year or could take 6 months off every few years. I believe this is doable from a technical perspective and it’s the problem I’m trying to devote my life to. We ultimately need to build optional societies where people who choose to join can opt out of consumerism, a major driver of our need for endless work. My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival. Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community. I think something like that in the future is one very useful aspect of a society where unnecessary work is over and regular people get to enjoy the benefits of modern productivity (instead of a small percentage of the population enjoying that while most people miss out). But in general when I talk to people I find that the hardest idea for them to grasp is the idea that we could all work less and things wouldn’t collapse. We just need to alter the distribution of wealth so that everyone benefits.
- _rpd 9y ago
  You might be interested in Marcin Jakubowski's work ... https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/ https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/
- leetcrew 9y ago
  > Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. i realize that the rest of your post details technological advancements that could create this condition (on an indefinite timeline), but you also seem to be saying that it is already possible today. i often see this sort of claim these days, and i always wonder why this is treated as self evident fact. in 2015, the PPP adjusted GDP per capita over the entire planet was just under $16k [1]. this is only 125% of the US poverty line for a single person in the same year [2]. even if we could deliver this sum to every person in the world without losing production capacity and with no administrative cost, it hardly seems enough to provide what you mean by a "modest living" to everyone. much closer to mere subsistence in a developed nation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... [2] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
closeparen 9y ago
Hazing, austerity, and rigor. The military certainly cannot be accused of making soldiers more comfortable than taxpayers, and that’s what they really care about. Whether they’re deployed to economicically productive ends is more of an academic concern. On a gut level, the public needs to feel that they are not paid to be lazy, and the military delivers with overwhelming gusto. Lawyers may similarly be accused of evil, but rarely laziness. There’s a general perception that they’ve passed through a crucible we wouldn’t survive (law school) and do work we couldn’t hack. Other bureaucrats, not so much.
- posterboy 9y ago
  Lawyers can be horribly lazy. "let's just wait for a reaction, if we are lucky, nothings gonna come." "Let's just threaten with outrageous claims instead of making an effort." "We know the law is wrong but it's easier to roll with it than to fix it or find a way around it."
ngvrnd 9y ago
well... one way, you have goons, the other way, you have livers. The problem with mincome is the hedonic treadmill. the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary.
- naravara 9y ago
  >the folk receiving mincome will grow dissatisfied with their lot and militate for raises. negative feedback is unpleasant but necessary. Close. What it does is reduces supply (fewer people working) while raising demand (people with more money in their pockets). This winds up causing inflation that erodes away the value of the minimum income. It's not even a hedonic treadmill, just an inflationary one. A basic income guarantee can only ever work as temporary assistance or as a residualist stopgap for people on the fringes of society. If it's too widespread it ends up working against itself. A job guarantee increases supply (assuming you use the labor power productively) while keeping demand high, so that works against the inflation problem. It's a tough balancing act though. You have to make sure the make-work is actually producing useful stuff or you'll have all the same problems as the basic income plus a bunch of random ditches dug. During Cultural Revolution in China cadres kind of engendered ecological catastrophes by creating bureaucratic agencies that would pointlessly clearcut forests for no reason. It's basically the paper-clip maximizing AI problem, only the intelligence isn't artificial.
colonelpopcorn 9y ago
Because at least in the goon economy you can compete in a hierarchy and be differentiated by status. "I have made X number of lawsuits/wars/security details successful which is more than Billy who only has Y number of successful lawsuits/wars/security details and that's why I should get a bonus and he shouldn't." sounds better than "I have exactly the same amount of income as Billy, but I should have more than he does because I think I'm better than Billy." Yes, there are other ways to differentiate yourself in a social hierarchy, but finding a new and novel way to live is a lot harder than continuing to live the same way humans have lived for centuries.

bryanlarsen 9y ago

Advertising is a very typical arms race. If you're the only one advertising, a small cheap ad is very effective. If your competitor is advertising you have to spend just as much just to tread water. If you spend more, it forces your competitors to spend more too. It's not surprising that the modern Silicon Valley economy is built on advertising.

badpun 9y ago
To give an example of that - my friend runs a one-man internet shop, selling niche items. His monthly profit is around (an equivalent of) $1-2k, while his Google invoice is $7k$-10k. So, essentially most of the fruits of his labor go to Google. And, according to him, if he tried spending less on advertising, he'd just vanish from the face of the Internet and customers would buy at his competitors.
RealityVoid 9y ago
I've been thinking the exact same thing lately! There is also in there somewhere a nice paralel to proof of work.
tabtab 9y ago
Peddling buzzwords and tech fads has made some bigly rich.

itronitron 9y ago

cyber-xyz is the other new white-collar goon job

almost_usual 9y ago

I think it's interesting this category is simply defined as "goon". This really has been the definition of our entire existence as a species. We have competitors and if they take our resources we attempt to kill them off. Even today the military encompasses the largest industry in the world. All of the technology we use has been rooted in the Military. Engineering Departments everywhere are subsidized by the Military more than any other department because they know anything you engineer has the potential as a "goon" application. I don't think "goon" is going away anytime soon, it's a core part of our evolution as a species.

musage 9y ago
humans came this far by cooperating and sharing in harsh environments just as much if not more more so by than fighting each other.

21 9y ago

Most future goons will be robots too. For both practical and political reasons (dead soldiers are not so cool).

Qub3d 9y ago

"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment." -Warren Bennis

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

>All this is only a bad thing if you care about efficiency. If you let go of that axiom, there are unlimited jobs to be created. Oh cool, we invented almost-basic income.

AmericanChopper 9y ago

The analogy to the army isn’t a very good one. It’s not a zero sum situation. A country can only devote so much of its GDP to the army, so the country with the biggest economy ends up with the biggest army. You don’t end up with 195 armies of equal size. The other thing that it misses is that the army is intentionally a vehicle for social mobility, and perhaps the most efficient one at that. The army is available to most people, where they can make a good career for themselves, or learn skills to take to the private sector, or move onto highly subsidized college. Dismissing it as bullshit is pretty narrow minded.

gaius 9y ago
the country with the biggest economy ends up with the biggest army But that isn’t true. Look at the size of the North Korean army.
- AmericanChopper 9y ago
  Are you actually suggesting that it’s larger than the US army?
  - gaius 9y ago
    US Army 476,000 regulars, North Korea 1.1M. So yes, twice as big in terms of people.
    - AmericanChopper 9y ago
      You're comparing the entire NK armed forces to one US branch. The entire USA armed forces is about 1.3M active personnel, with about 800K reserves. Which the US manages to achieve without conscription or slavery. If you also consider equipment and vehicles (which you absolutely should), then NK is not even remotely close. The number of naval ships, air crafts, tanks, armored combat vehicles, APCs, UAVs , etc... that the US has is so far ahead of any other country that it's not even worth trying to draw a comparison. You've made an overstated example of a single outlier. There's outliers at the other end too, with both countries that are too dysfunctional to have any national security at all, and countries that simply ride the coattails of their stronger allies. In any case, this is all entirely irrelevant to my point, which is that armed forces do contribute measurable value to society, and that the level of investment in them is typically proportional to the level of security a country requires.