5 ms·

The government should do precisely NOTHING. The jobs don't belong to workers, so the premise is entirely wrong to begin with.

by Proven 8y ago

exabrial 8y ago
This is correct. It's not the government's job to provide you a job, it's a personal responsibility to find one, if you want one. If you seek one, the government might provide some minor worker abuse and discrimination protections, but this in no way implies you have entitlement to a job or even income.
- CodeCube 8y ago
  Strictly speaking, you're "right" ... however, it belies an incredibly inhumane approach to life. Although I concede that reality doesn't always reflect intention, _my intention_ for government is to provide services and protections for all of us; every citizen. While yes, that shouldn't mean one is necessarily entitled to anything, I want my tax funds going towards helping people who have unforeseen things happen to them. If they lose a job, or get sick, or their head-of-household/primary income passes away, or they are the victim of abuse ... I want my funds to help those people.
- arglebarnacle 8y ago
  We're talking about a world where automation has consumed say 20%+ of jobs. You presumably don't want to let these newly unemployed people starve, so what's to be done? It's naive to think that continued rising mass unemployment while a small amount of robot owners get richer and richer is a stable model of society. The automated economy would end up in public hands soon enough, one way or another.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  So you're saying that even though the government promised us that exalted "job creators" deserved tax cut to create jobs and increase wages; and even though those same corporations took those tax cuts and paid themselves and bought robots with it instead of meaningfully boosting wages (where is my $4k every worker was promised?); and even though most of that money stayed at the top; and even though we'll be paying off that money far into the future; and even though the government continues to erode worker's rights; and even though this system has created people who have more money than they could possibly spend in 10 million lifetimes while others are starving and homeless; you're telling me that despite all that, it's our own damn responsibility to find a job, and the government plays no role here in a future where the game was rigged the entire time so that capital owners could control everything?
- RobertoG 8y ago
  >>" It's not the government's job to provide you a job" Maybe now things are how you say, but it's not a divine mandate. If you see the government as a tool of society, it's the society who should choose the role of the government through the democratic process.
mindcrime 8y ago
The government should do precisely NOTHING. Exactly. It is not the job of the State to make sure everybody has a job. Arguably all the State should do is protect property rights, enforce contracts and provide some notion of a "justice system". And really, all three of those things can be debated. The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Bastiat[1] put it by describing "the law" as "no more than the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". (paraphrased slightly). [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
- chongli 8y ago
  The job of the state, ultimately, is to preserve itself. In practice, that means upholding a social contract in order to maintain order. If we see a widespread outbreak of technological unemployment then more effort on the part of government is necessary lest public order breaks down. It's that simple. No moral arguments are necessary.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Widespread technological unemployment is definitely a concern, no question there. I'm just not convinced that government is the best tool to try and solve that problem, on both moral and practical grounds. But when I say "government" I really mean "Government as we know it today" - big, corrupt, invasive, inefficient, etc. Possibly a better model could be developed which would be better suited. That, to me, is the challenge for our time.
    - chongli 8y ago
      I don't see government corruption as being wholly determined by models. Models are a factor, no doubt, and you can affect the rate at which corruption encroaches by changing the model, but time and complexity are also major factors. Within a given model, complexity tends to increase with time and thus so does corruption. Perhaps another way to look at it is just to consider corruption as one form of complexity. Eventually complexity increases beyond the point of diminishing returns into negative territory. Then the system collapses. This is the position of Joseph Tainter, one I find particularly compelling.
Clubber 8y ago
Right, but the country these companies operate in, the infrastructure they rely on, the laws that allow capitalism to succeed, and the battalions needed to protect it does belong to the citizens, so ignore the citizenry at your peril.

The government should do precisely NOTHING. The jobs don't belong to workers, so the premise is entirely wrong to begin with.

by Proven 8y ago

The government should do precisely NOTHING. The jobs don't belong to workers, so the premise is entirely wrong to begin with.

exabrial 8y ago

This is correct. It's not the government's job to provide you a job, it's a personal responsibility to find one, if you want one. If you seek one, the government might provide some minor worker abuse and discrimination protections, but this in no way implies you have entitlement to a job or even income.

CodeCube 8y ago
Strictly speaking, you're "right" ... however, it belies an incredibly inhumane approach to life. Although I concede that reality doesn't always reflect intention, _my intention_ for government is to provide services and protections for all of us; every citizen. While yes, that shouldn't mean one is necessarily entitled to anything, I want my tax funds going towards helping people who have unforeseen things happen to them. If they lose a job, or get sick, or their head-of-household/primary income passes away, or they are the victim of abuse ... I want my funds to help those people.
arglebarnacle 8y ago
We're talking about a world where automation has consumed say 20%+ of jobs. You presumably don't want to let these newly unemployed people starve, so what's to be done? It's naive to think that continued rising mass unemployment while a small amount of robot owners get richer and richer is a stable model of society. The automated economy would end up in public hands soon enough, one way or another.
ModernMech 8y ago
So you're saying that even though the government promised us that exalted "job creators" deserved tax cut to create jobs and increase wages; and even though those same corporations took those tax cuts and paid themselves and bought robots with it instead of meaningfully boosting wages (where is my $4k every worker was promised?); and even though most of that money stayed at the top; and even though we'll be paying off that money far into the future; and even though the government continues to erode worker's rights; and even though this system has created people who have more money than they could possibly spend in 10 million lifetimes while others are starving and homeless; you're telling me that despite all that, it's our own damn responsibility to find a job, and the government plays no role here in a future where the game was rigged the entire time so that capital owners could control everything?
RobertoG 8y ago
>>" It's not the government's job to provide you a job" Maybe now things are how you say, but it's not a divine mandate. If you see the government as a tool of society, it's the society who should choose the role of the government through the democratic process.

mindcrime 8y ago

The government should do precisely NOTHING. Exactly. It is not the job of the State to make sure everybody has a job. Arguably all the State should do is protect property rights, enforce contracts and provide some notion of a "justice system". And really, all three of those things can be debated. The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Bastiat[1] put it by describing "the law" as "no more than the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". (paraphrased slightly). [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

chongli 8y ago
The job of the state, ultimately, is to preserve itself. In practice, that means upholding a social contract in order to maintain order. If we see a widespread outbreak of technological unemployment then more effort on the part of government is necessary lest public order breaks down. It's that simple. No moral arguments are necessary.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  Widespread technological unemployment is definitely a concern, no question there. I'm just not convinced that government is the best tool to try and solve that problem, on both moral and practical grounds. But when I say "government" I really mean "Government as we know it today" - big, corrupt, invasive, inefficient, etc. Possibly a better model could be developed which would be better suited. That, to me, is the challenge for our time.
  - chongli 8y ago
    I don't see government corruption as being wholly determined by models. Models are a factor, no doubt, and you can affect the rate at which corruption encroaches by changing the model, but time and complexity are also major factors. Within a given model, complexity tends to increase with time and thus so does corruption. Perhaps another way to look at it is just to consider corruption as one form of complexity. Eventually complexity increases beyond the point of diminishing returns into negative territory. Then the system collapses. This is the position of Joseph Tainter, one I find particularly compelling.

Clubber 8y ago

Right, but the country these companies operate in, the infrastructure they rely on, the laws that allow capitalism to succeed, and the battalions needed to protect it does belong to the citizens, so ignore the citizenry at your peril.