3 ms·

This seems like an inevitable outcome of everything that "we" (the startup and tech communities) are doing. Nearly every startup business I've seen on HN is abo

This seems like an inevitable outcome of everything that "we" (the startup and tech communities) are doing. Nearly every startup business I've seen on HN is about an optimization of an existing industry. Almost invariably, optimization means cutting people out of the loop, as people are quite slow at a lot of the tasks computers are suited for. The problem is of course the growing disparity between pay. As the existing middle is eliminated, the majority of people are trending towards the lower segment of pay (the 29/2/~70 ratio mentioned). Ideally we'd find a way to elevate a large portion of those in the lower 70% area to higher paying jobs. I think the reality is, many of those people probably will never be suited for jobs in the $100k+ range. The only solution I can see being viable is further socialization (in the US) of things like medical care, transportation, etc. in order to ensure that just because you don't have a high salary, doesn't mean you can't have a high quality of life. Either that or accept that the US is devolving into a 3rd world country. Bring on the "socialist" flames.

kyllo 14y ago
All repetitive labor will eventually be automated. It is only a matter of time. The problem with capitalism and tech is that the efficiency gains realized through automation nearly all go to the owners of the firms. The human laborers replaced by programs and robots are just S.O.L. Capitalism only works for a society as long as capital owners need human labor to carry out production. "The only solution I can see being viable is further socialization (in the US) of things like medical care, transportation, etc. in order to ensure that just because you don't have a high salary, doesn't mean you can't have a high quality of life. Either that or accept that the US is devolving into a 3rd world country." Yes. Either we implement basic income and universal healthcare, and improve access to public services, or we will end up with a tiny, but very wealthy "owner" class, and a very large, unemployed, impoverished majority. Better to do it soon, while it's still a choice, rather than later, when it isn't. History has shown that the masses will only put up with so much inequality before they openly revolt. An opposing force to this, though, is that increased automation will continue to reduce costs and barriers to entry, allowing people with almost no resources to start some form of income-generating online "lifestyle business." A lot of people are doing this now, but not nearly enough people are capable of it, for it to be a sustainable career option for almost the entire American middle class. Yet.
- greghinch 14y ago
  The lifestyle business prospect is interesting, as mentioned in that Forbes article that hit the front page[1], there is the possibility for many to start making a steady living in the sharing economy. I'm involved with a business working in the arena, and the possibilities are intriguing. Whether or not it becomes a sustainable economy for the longer term is still pretty up in the air [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and...
  - kyllo 14y ago
    I read that article too. The possibilites are interesting but i dont think sharing your stuff for cash will be a sustainable career option for most, especially if the cost of that stuff keeps going down. Another possibility is that inequality and exponential growth in CEO compensation are due to the fact that most companies are not free marketplaces internally. They are run like little communist dictatorships where compensation is allocated by social/political rank, not by value created. If companies had to pay people according to the actual marginal value of their work, perhaps the inequality wouldn't get quite so severe. But human workers would still have to gradually retrain themselves to perform non-automatable tasks en masse, and the transition period is still going to be painful. That part seems unavoidable.
rthomas6 14y ago
I don't think socialism or a high salary is necessary to have a higher quality of life over the long term. As technology increases abundance, material goods will become cheaper. This has been happening for thousands of years. The mean and median standard of living has been steadily increasing for a long time. I see no reason why it should be any different now. I think the real problem is only what to do over the short term with people that have trouble being useful in today's economy. Some socialism to solve that problem, I think, would be a good idea.
- greghinch 14y ago
  > I don't think socialism or a high salary is necessary to have a higher quality of life over the long term Agreed, though this really only applies to younger generations. A large portion of our currently unemployed are in the 40-60 year old bracket (aging population). It's unlikely a lot of these people are going to strike out into new careers. I'm sure some will, but it doesn't seem enough to make a difference. So we need to figure out how to care for them. And if we set up a social safety-net for everyone in the process, all the better. > As technology increases abundance, material goods will become cheaper. Possibly. Innovations like 3D printing are particularly interesting. As they become more sophisticated, predominately foreign manufacturing could come back home, albeit in the hands of "robots". Hopefully this would lower costs of goods, but the steady upward march of inflation leads me to think that's unlikely.
  - rthomas6 14y ago
    Inflation is irrelevant over the long term. The real cost of goods after adjusting for inflation has gone down for the past few hundred years. It's of course a problem, but not because it will increase scarcity. As you mentioned, the real problem is the aging and obsolete workers in the short term.

kyllo 14y ago

All repetitive labor will eventually be automated. It is only a matter of time. The problem with capitalism and tech is that the efficiency gains realized through automation nearly all go to the owners of the firms. The human laborers replaced by programs and robots are just S.O.L. Capitalism only works for a society as long as capital owners need human labor to carry out production. "The only solution I can see being viable is further socialization (in the US) of things like medical care, transportation, etc. in order to ensure that just because you don't have a high salary, doesn't mean you can't have a high quality of life. Either that or accept that the US is devolving into a 3rd world country." Yes. Either we implement basic income and universal healthcare, and improve access to public services, or we will end up with a tiny, but very wealthy "owner" class, and a very large, unemployed, impoverished majority. Better to do it soon, while it's still a choice, rather than later, when it isn't. History has shown that the masses will only put up with so much inequality before they openly revolt. An opposing force to this, though, is that increased automation will continue to reduce costs and barriers to entry, allowing people with almost no resources to start some form of income-generating online "lifestyle business." A lot of people are doing this now, but not nearly enough people are capable of it, for it to be a sustainable career option for almost the entire American middle class. Yet.

greghinch 14y ago
The lifestyle business prospect is interesting, as mentioned in that Forbes article that hit the front page[1], there is the possibility for many to start making a steady living in the sharing economy. I'm involved with a business working in the arena, and the possibilities are intriguing. Whether or not it becomes a sustainable economy for the longer term is still pretty up in the air [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-and...
- kyllo 14y ago
  I read that article too. The possibilites are interesting but i dont think sharing your stuff for cash will be a sustainable career option for most, especially if the cost of that stuff keeps going down. Another possibility is that inequality and exponential growth in CEO compensation are due to the fact that most companies are not free marketplaces internally. They are run like little communist dictatorships where compensation is allocated by social/political rank, not by value created. If companies had to pay people according to the actual marginal value of their work, perhaps the inequality wouldn't get quite so severe. But human workers would still have to gradually retrain themselves to perform non-automatable tasks en masse, and the transition period is still going to be painful. That part seems unavoidable.

rthomas6 14y ago

I don't think socialism or a high salary is necessary to have a higher quality of life over the long term. As technology increases abundance, material goods will become cheaper. This has been happening for thousands of years. The mean and median standard of living has been steadily increasing for a long time. I see no reason why it should be any different now. I think the real problem is only what to do over the short term with people that have trouble being useful in today's economy. Some socialism to solve that problem, I think, would be a good idea.

greghinch 14y ago
> I don't think socialism or a high salary is necessary to have a higher quality of life over the long term Agreed, though this really only applies to younger generations. A large portion of our currently unemployed are in the 40-60 year old bracket (aging population). It's unlikely a lot of these people are going to strike out into new careers. I'm sure some will, but it doesn't seem enough to make a difference. So we need to figure out how to care for them. And if we set up a social safety-net for everyone in the process, all the better. > As technology increases abundance, material goods will become cheaper. Possibly. Innovations like 3D printing are particularly interesting. As they become more sophisticated, predominately foreign manufacturing could come back home, albeit in the hands of "robots". Hopefully this would lower costs of goods, but the steady upward march of inflation leads me to think that's unlikely.
- rthomas6 14y ago
  Inflation is irrelevant over the long term. The real cost of goods after adjusting for inflation has gone down for the past few hundred years. It's of course a problem, but not because it will increase scarcity. As you mentioned, the real problem is the aging and obsolete workers in the short term.