5 ms·

We seem to be going in the opposite direction of a “post scarce” world where everything is getting more expensive and most people I know are working longer hour

We seem to be going in the opposite direction of a “post scarce” world where everything is getting more expensive and most people I know are working longer hours or multiple jobs to survive.

godelski 3y ago
Yeah and I don't understand why. Like we even have the old saying "9 to 5" but who works a 9 to 5 job? That used to be literally the hours which included the lunch break. I only know 8-5 or 9-6 jobs being the norm. And it's weird that we have this codified in our language but no longer in reality without any clear justification. I feel like a fast one was pulled on us here.
- piuantiderp 3y ago
  Paraphrasing Adam Smith, The main reason is economic profit of any venture can go to pay 3 things: 1. capital invested (having an inventory of things, having done the R&D, having built an expensive factory, just represents existing wealth and assets (not money!!)) 2. labor (the people involved) 3. rent (for the land used) With technology, and there is no indication AI is any better, capital owners get more and more of the profit of any venture. If anything, its point is to reduce the dependence on labor. So you have more people, competing for fewer spots, and you can get away with paying them less. The lower bound for what you could pay labor is just barely enough, so they keep having enough kids to provide future workers. If you start with a glut of workers, then it is a dark situation (which we are already living in, how many people can afford to have kids?)
CalRobert 3y ago
Any world that includes a scarcity of a necessity will have people trying to outcompete their peers for said necessities. Right now that's housing, for the most part, and sometimes health care. Sure you could ask for a 4 day week, but someone else will work 5 so they can outbid you on a house.
- godelski 3y ago
  You've definitely simplified the problem too much. This only works under the assumption that everyone is making the same amount of money for the same amount of time and are interested in the same housing. In the extreme case, clearly any software engineer could take a 20% pay cut and still be able to out bid someone who works in fast food but got a 20% raise by working a 6th day. Human preference is also wildly variable. I don't buy the constant "I'd rather not live in a city" argument that we hear because people could in fact do that, but there are plenty of preferences that people do make and it isn't like housing in fungible. The simple model won't get us very far in estimating the actual effects and likely will actually make us make the wrong conclusions. Plus, there are solutions to many of the housing problems (which also is non-singular).
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Well, I suppose my key point is that if 3 people are chasing 2 homes, any surplus cash is likely to be poured in to housing.
    - godelski 3y ago
      Yeah, I get that. But I think the system is much more complex than that and it is necessary to have a better model to make successful predictions. I certainly don't think what you're saying is a bad place to start, but rather that we need to acknowledge the limitations and that it is a start.
      - piuantiderp 3y ago
        If it were possible, economists would have a better reputation. That being said, the idea is not flawed, until there is a plenty of necessities, markets and the individuals in them, will continue to compete for them.

We seem to be going in the opposite direction of a “post scarce” world where everything is getting more expensive and most people I know are working longer hours or multiple jobs to survive.

godelski 3y ago

Yeah and I don't understand why. Like we even have the old saying "9 to 5" but who works a 9 to 5 job? That used to be literally the hours which included the lunch break. I only know 8-5 or 9-6 jobs being the norm. And it's weird that we have this codified in our language but no longer in reality without any clear justification. I feel like a fast one was pulled on us here.

piuantiderp 3y ago
Paraphrasing Adam Smith, The main reason is economic profit of any venture can go to pay 3 things: 1. capital invested (having an inventory of things, having done the R&D, having built an expensive factory, just represents existing wealth and assets (not money!!)) 2. labor (the people involved) 3. rent (for the land used) With technology, and there is no indication AI is any better, capital owners get more and more of the profit of any venture. If anything, its point is to reduce the dependence on labor. So you have more people, competing for fewer spots, and you can get away with paying them less. The lower bound for what you could pay labor is just barely enough, so they keep having enough kids to provide future workers. If you start with a glut of workers, then it is a dark situation (which we are already living in, how many people can afford to have kids?)

CalRobert 3y ago

Any world that includes a scarcity of a necessity will have people trying to outcompete their peers for said necessities. Right now that's housing, for the most part, and sometimes health care. Sure you could ask for a 4 day week, but someone else will work 5 so they can outbid you on a house.

godelski 3y ago
You've definitely simplified the problem too much. This only works under the assumption that everyone is making the same amount of money for the same amount of time and are interested in the same housing. In the extreme case, clearly any software engineer could take a 20% pay cut and still be able to out bid someone who works in fast food but got a 20% raise by working a 6th day. Human preference is also wildly variable. I don't buy the constant "I'd rather not live in a city" argument that we hear because people could in fact do that, but there are plenty of preferences that people do make and it isn't like housing in fungible. The simple model won't get us very far in estimating the actual effects and likely will actually make us make the wrong conclusions. Plus, there are solutions to many of the housing problems (which also is non-singular).
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Well, I suppose my key point is that if 3 people are chasing 2 homes, any surplus cash is likely to be poured in to housing.
  - godelski 3y ago
    Yeah, I get that. But I think the system is much more complex than that and it is necessary to have a better model to make successful predictions. I certainly don't think what you're saying is a bad place to start, but rather that we need to acknowledge the limitations and that it is a start.
    - piuantiderp 3y ago
      If it were possible, economists would have a better reputation. That being said, the idea is not flawed, until there is a plenty of necessities, markets and the individuals in them, will continue to compete for them.