4 ms·

People are not being paid for being skilled or educated, but for being useful. It's not a given that Millions of people have something useful to do. I think us

People are not being paid for being skilled or educated, but for being useful. It's not a given that Millions of people have something useful to do. I think usually society regulates itself that way: people who prosper have kids. Because their parents are in a booming field of work, it is likely that there will also be work for their kids. Sometimes there are shifts in economics (for example coal mining going out of fashion), and millions suddenly are without a job. The economy can "buffer" some of that, but not arbitrarily high numbers. I suppose in the past this was even more obvious, as it was directly food based. I suppose as long as there was more land to convert to farmland, having kids always worked out - if they survived, they could start new farms and repeat the cycle. There are different strategies, like having as many kids as possible and hoping that some make it. Nobody is "structuring society" in a cruel way, it is bottom up, individual decisions by people.

lenkite 6y ago
I think usually society regulates itself that way: people who prosper have kids No they don't - not in modern industrial societies. Please look at the data.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Not in pre-industrial societies either. There was just a really high maternal and childhood mortality rate to go with the really high birth rate. Modern societies also have a precipitously declining fertility rate.
Apocryphon 6y ago
Useful? https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bullshit%20jobs https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bullshit%20jobs
m000 6y ago
> People are not being paid for being skilled or educated, but for being useful. It's not a given that Millions of people have something useful to do. That's the line of thinking that leads to an abundance of low-skill, low-pay jobs and a shortage in skilled workers, where needed. Skill and education are not produced overnight to fit the market needs. They are a long-term investment by the individual and the society. > I think usually society regulates itself that way: people who prosper have kids. Because their parents are in a booming field of work, it is likely that there will also be work for their kids. Sometimes there are shifts in economics (for example coal mining going out of fashion), and millions suddenly are without a job. The economy can "buffer" some of that, but not arbitrarily high numbers. So the answer to society's problems is nepotism instead of meritocracy and equal opportunities. That's a good one! > I suppose in the past this was even more obvious, as it was directly food based. I suppose as long as there was more land to convert to farmland, having kids always worked out - if they survived, they could start new farms and repeat the cycle. > There are different strategies, like having as many kids as possible and hoping that some make it. Civilization has always been about relieving people from the stress of having to devise a survival strategy. That's a waste of manpower from a societal standpoint. A society is made weaker by having more people struggling for the livelihood of themselves and their family. Moreover, having as many kids as possible was a strategy for a time when wars, famine and disease ravaged the population and the earth was sparsely populated. It's a stupid strategy today, unless you advocate massive depopulation and returning to a global state of human misery. > Nobody is "structuring society" in a cruel way, it is bottom up, individual decisions by people. Societies can be structured and are structured. That's the essence of society. Even letting society unregulated is essentially structuring it in favour of the groups that happen to hold power. And this is just one logical step away from racist theories: If your group is prospering for too long while other groups live in misery, it's only a matter of time to self-declare it as superior, conveniently ignoring that society was rigged in your favour.
imtringued 6y ago
>It's not a given that Millions of people have something useful to do. It pretty much is guaranteed because that is how we structured our economic system. Why do think we have inflation? Inflation reduces the value of our assets and forces us to work just to stay where we are. It forces rich people to productively invest their assets. It forces poor people to spend their money as quickly as possible. This accelerates the economy an creates new jobs. Low un(der)employment is a policy goal of many governments and controlled inflation is a tool used to achieve that goal.

lenkite 6y ago

I think usually society regulates itself that way: people who prosper have kids No they don't - not in modern industrial societies. Please look at the data.

meheleventyone 6y ago
Not in pre-industrial societies either. There was just a really high maternal and childhood mortality rate to go with the really high birth rate. Modern societies also have a precipitously declining fertility rate.

Apocryphon 6y ago

Useful? https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bullshit%20jobs https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bullshit%20jobs

m000 6y ago

> People are not being paid for being skilled or educated, but for being useful. It's not a given that Millions of people have something useful to do. That's the line of thinking that leads to an abundance of low-skill, low-pay jobs and a shortage in skilled workers, where needed. Skill and education are not produced overnight to fit the market needs. They are a long-term investment by the individual and the society. > I think usually society regulates itself that way: people who prosper have kids. Because their parents are in a booming field of work, it is likely that there will also be work for their kids. Sometimes there are shifts in economics (for example coal mining going out of fashion), and millions suddenly are without a job. The economy can "buffer" some of that, but not arbitrarily high numbers. So the answer to society's problems is nepotism instead of meritocracy and equal opportunities. That's a good one! > I suppose in the past this was even more obvious, as it was directly food based. I suppose as long as there was more land to convert to farmland, having kids always worked out - if they survived, they could start new farms and repeat the cycle. > There are different strategies, like having as many kids as possible and hoping that some make it. Civilization has always been about relieving people from the stress of having to devise a survival strategy. That's a waste of manpower from a societal standpoint. A society is made weaker by having more people struggling for the livelihood of themselves and their family. Moreover, having as many kids as possible was a strategy for a time when wars, famine and disease ravaged the population and the earth was sparsely populated. It's a stupid strategy today, unless you advocate massive depopulation and returning to a global state of human misery. > Nobody is "structuring society" in a cruel way, it is bottom up, individual decisions by people. Societies can be structured and are structured. That's the essence of society. Even letting society unregulated is essentially structuring it in favour of the groups that happen to hold power. And this is just one logical step away from racist theories: If your group is prospering for too long while other groups live in misery, it's only a matter of time to self-declare it as superior, conveniently ignoring that society was rigged in your favour.

imtringued 6y ago

>It's not a given that Millions of people have something useful to do. It pretty much is guaranteed because that is how we structured our economic system. Why do think we have inflation? Inflation reduces the value of our assets and forces us to work just to stay where we are. It forces rich people to productively invest their assets. It forces poor people to spend their money as quickly as possible. This accelerates the economy an creates new jobs. Low un(der)employment is a policy goal of many governments and controlled inflation is a tool used to achieve that goal.