3 ms·

"allows us to go on to do more productive tasks" The idea only works as long as there are sufficient number of jobs in "more productive tasks". If jobs are dest

by berkay 13y ago

"allows us to go on to do more productive tasks" The idea only works as long as there are sufficient number of jobs in "more productive tasks". If jobs are destroyed but there is no place to deploy the resources gained by the productivity increase, then there is not much value, and there are many negative side effects.

tzs 13y ago
That's true as long as people need jobs in order to have a decent life. Eventually, the productivity gains from technology should produce enough gain to allow for a guaranteed basic income [1] sufficient to allow displaced workers to effectively retire if they wish. You'll only need to find a job if you want more than the GBI can provide. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Question is, at what point do you implement that? Any politician who stands up and says "We have given up on lowering unemployment, time to pay everyone to stay at home" is not going to be popular until the problem is of such a magnitude that you cannot ignore it. Even in such a situation, what incentive besides purely humanitarian does an individual with a job have to sacrifice income for those who do not? Currently you can justify subsidising a non productive person in the hopes that they will be productive later. What happens if that is highly unlikely and instead they devote their time to breeding more people who will also likely become unproductive and require subsidy?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    tzs is right though, at some point we will automate most of the labor/service jobs away. We either need to dispense with the whole protestant-work-ethic sing-for-your-supper crap, or make damn sure that we have enough stuff to do, and that people have the resources (access to education) they need to do new jobs. " time to pay everyone to stay at home" There are various levels of "paying everyone to stay at home" There is moving to a part-time employment model. There are also possibilities for interesting good things to happen to the labor market once everyone is not trapped in "must always work" mode.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days.
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I think the taxman's bludgeon would be the weapon of choice here. >I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days. What do you propose as an alternative? A worker-class and a loafer-class? Prisons? Eugenics? Population control isn't very warm and fuzzy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925DC384937 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925D...
        jiggy2011 13y ago
        Would you tax people based on the number of hours they worked? What about people who are not paid hourly, which would increase drastically unless you outlawed it. Then you have to define what counts as "work", does reading HN count towards your daily allowance since it is tangentially related to your work? What about reading documentation? Or is it only the hours you are typing code into an editor? All options seem undesirable when you take them to their logical conclusions.
        fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >Would you tax people based on the number of hours they worked? Not me man, I have a job. I just said taxes because that seems like the favorite/most humane weapon of gov't with which to influence people. >All options seem undesirable when you take them to their logical conclusions. Such is the case for doing nothing as well, I believe.
  - gambogi 13y ago
    We know that intrinisically motivated people will aspire to do, even if there isn't a need for them too. If we provide for both the intrinsic and extrinsic, we effectively cover 100% of motivated individuals. By making it easy for those with passion to act on it we do all of society a favor. As for the non-productive members of society, it's not a huge issue because they don't need to be productive to live. This means that your right to live is unconditional. Excuse my corniness, but after all, why should there be conditions on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      What about the jobs that still need doing but people are not generally highly intrinsically motivated to do relative to other things they could be doing if they had free choice? For example if you gave software developers a bunch of cash and told them to work on whatever they wanted, how many would go and build video games or invent esoteric programming languages (fun but not important) vs how many would want to build (or worse maintain) a system for the administration of taxes (less fun but very important). Hell, how many would even develop software at all vs just take up some other activity of even less value. Therefor the best way to motivate these people is to extrinsic motivate them with money. However what happens if most of that money is taken as taxation and spent on people who sit around and do whatever they want all day? Do they still have the same incentive to do the boring but necessary jobs?
      - gambogi 13y ago
        Well, first of all, I'm not arguing for equal pay for everyone, I'm in favor of a guarenteed minimum income. Secondly, money doesn't work as a motivator for non menial tasks.[1] And you know, a task that seems boring and uninteresting to you might not for someone else. As for how many of us would even develop software at all, I need only point to the open source community. Extrinsic notivation has its place, but it is no substitute for that internal drive. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
        13y ago
- sneak 13y ago
  You're not from around here, are you?

by berkay 13y ago

tzs 13y ago

That's true as long as people need jobs in order to have a decent life. Eventually, the productivity gains from technology should produce enough gain to allow for a guaranteed basic income [1] sufficient to allow displaced workers to effectively retire if they wish. You'll only need to find a job if you want more than the GBI can provide. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

jiggy2011 13y ago
Question is, at what point do you implement that? Any politician who stands up and says "We have given up on lowering unemployment, time to pay everyone to stay at home" is not going to be popular until the problem is of such a magnitude that you cannot ignore it. Even in such a situation, what incentive besides purely humanitarian does an individual with a job have to sacrifice income for those who do not? Currently you can justify subsidising a non productive person in the hopes that they will be productive later. What happens if that is highly unlikely and instead they devote their time to breeding more people who will also likely become unproductive and require subsidy?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  tzs is right though, at some point we will automate most of the labor/service jobs away. We either need to dispense with the whole protestant-work-ethic sing-for-your-supper crap, or make damn sure that we have enough stuff to do, and that people have the resources (access to education) they need to do new jobs. " time to pay everyone to stay at home" There are various levels of "paying everyone to stay at home" There is moving to a part-time employment model. There are also possibilities for interesting good things to happen to the labor market once everyone is not trapped in "must always work" mode.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      >Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I think the taxman's bludgeon would be the weapon of choice here. >I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days. What do you propose as an alternative? A worker-class and a loafer-class? Prisons? Eugenics? Population control isn't very warm and fuzzy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925DC384937 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925D...
      - jiggy2011 13y ago
        Would you tax people based on the number of hours they worked? What about people who are not paid hourly, which would increase drastically unless you outlawed it. Then you have to define what counts as "work", does reading HN count towards your daily allowance since it is tangentially related to your work? What about reading documentation? Or is it only the hours you are typing code into an editor? All options seem undesirable when you take them to their logical conclusions.
        fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >Would you tax people based on the number of hours they worked? Not me man, I have a job. I just said taxes because that seems like the favorite/most humane weapon of gov't with which to influence people. >All options seem undesirable when you take them to their logical conclusions. Such is the case for doing nothing as well, I believe.
- gambogi 13y ago
  We know that intrinisically motivated people will aspire to do, even if there isn't a need for them too. If we provide for both the intrinsic and extrinsic, we effectively cover 100% of motivated individuals. By making it easy for those with passion to act on it we do all of society a favor. As for the non-productive members of society, it's not a huge issue because they don't need to be productive to live. This means that your right to live is unconditional. Excuse my corniness, but after all, why should there be conditions on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    What about the jobs that still need doing but people are not generally highly intrinsically motivated to do relative to other things they could be doing if they had free choice? For example if you gave software developers a bunch of cash and told them to work on whatever they wanted, how many would go and build video games or invent esoteric programming languages (fun but not important) vs how many would want to build (or worse maintain) a system for the administration of taxes (less fun but very important). Hell, how many would even develop software at all vs just take up some other activity of even less value. Therefor the best way to motivate these people is to extrinsic motivate them with money. However what happens if most of that money is taken as taxation and spent on people who sit around and do whatever they want all day? Do they still have the same incentive to do the boring but necessary jobs?
    - gambogi 13y ago
      Well, first of all, I'm not arguing for equal pay for everyone, I'm in favor of a guarenteed minimum income. Secondly, money doesn't work as a motivator for non menial tasks.[1] And you know, a task that seems boring and uninteresting to you might not for someone else. As for how many of us would even develop software at all, I need only point to the open source community. Extrinsic notivation has its place, but it is no substitute for that internal drive. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
      - 13y ago
sneak 13y ago
You're not from around here, are you?