3 ms·
Perhaps surprisingly in an interview that's mostly about technical issues, Tristan Sloughter makes some very smart points about labor: global labor issues: Wit
by jboynyc 13y ago
Perhaps surprisingly in an interview that's mostly about technical issues, Tristan Sloughter makes some very smart points about labor:
global labor issues: With high unemployment, and high under-employment, it is said you should feel lucky simply to have a job and to not ask for more.
effect of the two-tier labor market for engineers: I've spoken to many developers who think golden jobs exist all over easily to grab by anyone who will work hard enough. This is not the case at all and the programmers in the companies with slides and free lunches must learn this and unite with the real world or risk finding themselves on the wrong side of labor battle in the future.
creation of a 'reserve army': I think the push for everyone to learn to code shows what the future holds. More and more companies in all fields are having uses for programmers, and the easier it is to replace them with cheaper labor the better for their profits.
anti-labor bias in U.S. culture: More likely the mass of developers are on the "Right" but not because of libertarian ideology but simply being in the United States.
social context of technology use: Simply developing a technology doesn't change the world, but the social battles around it, either directly or indirectly, do.
social progress requires socialism: There is enough food and housing, it simply isn't being properly distributed, and this shows that technology itself can not provide a solution.
- mercurial 13y agoInteresting interview. However, the notion of a "planned economy", even for a left-wing person such as yours truly, echoes of dreadful communist five-year plans. I remember, in Accelerando, the idea of algorithmically assigning resources, but it sounds very hard to do in practice, even though our current economic model is both unfair and headed for disaster in the not-so-long term.
- kungfooguru 13y agoOur current economic model is also very planned, just not by and for the right people and reasons. The five-year plans were to bring a backward feudal country into the 20th century. That isn't to legitimize the abuses any more than it is legitimize the abuses the US and other countries (slavery and other labor abuses) committed to advance themselves to the level they are at.
- mercurial 13y agoIf you mean that special interests influence government policy, I'll be forced to agree with you. However, this is widely different from what is commonly understood as a "planned economy". Nobody sits down and decides of the economic output necessary.
- _Robbie 13y agoI have long been interested in these issues. The overarching issue is that labor is becoming less valuable in relation to capital. This is evidenced by increasing productivity but stagnant wages, a decrease in labor's share of GDP, and an increase in corporate profits share of GDP. The simplest solutions are to redistribute wealth such as through a basic income or a negative income tax. These programs can be viewed as fixing capitalism, and are not necessarily socialist. Unfortunately, most of these redistribution programs will need to be implemented by governments. As an alternative to governmental redistribution, I have thought about an e-currency with a time based demurrage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)) fee. The demurrage fees would be paid out equally to all consumers. The demurrage fee plays the same role as a job in the current economy by circulating currency from producers to consumers. Since it is an e-currency, it would be independent of governments. The good news is that if in the future wealth inequality causes economic output to shrink, businesses might be forced to accept these types of currencies in order to grow.