14 ms·

A nation of slaves

307 points by semanticist 13y ago

stefantalpalaru 13y ago
An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  Basic income would be just a step up to the ultimate goal of Star Trek style economy. I guess that having basic income would help cut on those 'bullshit jobs' that don't actually benefit anyone and are just a net negative for the society.
  - happyscrappy 13y ago
    What are these bullshit jobs? If cutting them has no effect then there is a profit to be had.
    - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
      Many positions in the public administration fit the pattern.
    - levosmetalo 13y ago
      From the article, those are jobs that "have no benefit for person working", and "have no benefit for the rest of the society". Why we do work them? Because they benefit the small group that is powerful enough to force society to do net negative thing.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Not the author, but there are undoubtedly plenty of stimulus jobs created by the government that could be cut. Smart parking meters (that accept credit cards, and that let you reup time with your phone) for example, could dramatically adjust the number of positions available for meter maids / parking enforcement officers. USPS is probably going to have to shift at some point to... something different. The federal government spends $25 billion maintaining vacant properties, and owns more than 50,000 vacant homes. That probably doesn't equate to job elimination, but there's got to be some kind of opportunity there. Toll booths for toll roads have got to be on the way out, right? I mean, not saying EZ Pass is the best, or most ubiquitous, but we've got speed cameras that map to DMV databases such that if I run a toll, I already get a bill in the mail -- add a new question at the DMV for 'email address' and stop sending paper bills and you've got a business model.
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      See Q5 of http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minister_qa.htm http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minis... A hospital with no nurses, doctors or patients only administrative staff.
    - glesica 13y ago
      I see you've never worked in a large organization... ;-) Bullshit jobs are largely jobs that managers create and defend in order to expand their managerial fiefdoms. A manager's influence in an organization comes partially from how many people report to him or her. That's the incentive structure that creates many of the bullshit jobs. There are also interpersonal issues in play. For instance, you or I might walk into a particular company and observe a dozen different processes that could be easily automated with off-the-shelf software but are currently being done by humans. We might say to the manager "Why don't you automate, you're wasting money?!". In some cases, the manager would reply that the people doing those jobs are valued employees, possibly even friends, and automating those processes would put them out of work and thus, the processes are not automated. It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient.
      - npsimons 13y ago
        It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient. I like to point this out to anyone who says "well, a business wouldn't do it if it made them less efficient", eg the case of open floor plans for programmers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280
      - happyscrappy 13y ago
        >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Operating more efficiently is exactly what is destroying jobs. Middle managers are an easy target but I fail to see how there are enough of them to move the needles.
      - Consultant32452 13y ago
        >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. I think the purpose of this adage is that businesses operate more efficiently than government entities. Not with perfect efficiency.
    - acomar 13y ago
      It's worse than that -- I've heard stories from friends in government agencies of people who do net-negative work (i.e. they create work for others) and keep their jobs for political/societal/social reasons.
      - drdeadringer 13y ago
        I recall the following: "The factory at the edge of town has two employees -- a Human, and a dog. The Human's job is to feed the dog. The dog's job is to keep the Human away from the machines."
    - ansible 13y ago
      Telemarketers. Door-to-door cable TV sales. Most of the paper-pushers in the USA's medical care system (assuming we go to single payer system as well). A large percentage of retail workers (in the USA we have way more retail space than is really necessary). Most of the mid-level managers in most of the large corporations. Any place that has strict union work-rules is usually overstaffed to my eye. Much of the administration of social services (Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.) in the USA (to all be replaced by that basic living stipend). I can think of more.
- yaddayadda 13y ago
  "Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes..." or simply refer to us as Sisyphians.
  - spbaar 13y ago
    We can only hope that basic income allows them to read more books.
- bausson 13y ago
  Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filling the ranks (let's say: food industry, waiter, marts cashiers (or the people filling the mart at night), ... But education industry (and universities) would have to change their methods, because nowadays peoples are willing to commit 100,000's of $ to get a well paying job, this incentive would be gone, the better paying one being the physical labor, with low education requirement. I also wonder if people would go with their lives the same way they do now. I, for one, would get one of those hard, high-paying job straight out of high school for a few year, enough to buy a house and save a bit, then go to university (or self-studying with internet classes, choosing some classes in common with friends) and study whatever I found get my interest. TL;DR: I'm all for Basic Income, mainly because I don't see any long-terme viable alterative, and also because the changes it would bring to society would be really interesting to study.
  - Theodores 13y ago
    You mention garbage collection, this is actually an interesting job for those that do it in Reading, UK. Reading has had the benefit of 'negative unemployment', as in more jobs than people, so how do you recruit people to collect the garbage? It actually works out well for some that do it, by starting at '4 a.m.' they finish early afternoon, around about lunch time and can be around when their kids get out of school. They also get paid rather well, as in £40K, which is well above minimum wage. They are also working, whereas chances are that 'Microsoft', 'Vodafone' or any of the other big-brand, knowledge economy employers of the area probably would not employ them. The garbage collector in Reading is quite likely to want to hold onto his/her job as it makes a lot of life possible, even if it does come with the 'stigma' of being in the 'recycling business' (okay, being a bin man!). I must say that the situation in Reading is an anomaly, it may not even exist any more, but five years ago it was a cushy number, I had friends doing it. Compare this situation to collecting the garbage in a rural no-jobs area. Here the job pays minimum wage and nobody sticks at it for very long. There is no benefit in doing it as the money is barely any more than income support and any overtime is swallowed up by tax. Consequently there is a high amount of churn as people give it a go to get off the employment register and prove to the government that they are willing to work, then, one way or another, they jack it in. So how would that work out in a 'basic income' economy in some rural town where there are no jobs? I think it would still work out rather well, even if the pay was £10K after tax + Basic Income. It would make the difference between having a subsistence style existence and one where one could cook nice meals for the kids and buy them all the things they need. Even a holiday could be afforded, subject to budgeting ability.
- psaintla 13y ago
  It would be interesting to see if having some level of universal basic income and universal healthcare would be far better than having many federal, state and local departments dealing with distribution of a wide array of various government services.
- drcode 13y ago
  FYI, I created an infographic recently that teaches people all the details they need to know about basic income: http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png
  - lotharbot 13y ago
    Milton Friedman was a strong proponent of (a variant of) Basic Income.
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    This system leaves out the "from each according to his ability"[1] part that's the root of totalitarian regimes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
  - kemayo 13y ago
    Hardly. Communism is a system in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. (It's more complicated than that, but y'know...) A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. (Again, more complicated really.) But there's nothing wrong with Socialism. It's a bad word in America, for historical reasons, despite being fairly widely implemented within that country.
    - erichocean 13y ago
      > A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. Disagree. Provision of money and "co-operative management" are two separate concepts. You can do either, both, or none.
    - drcode 13y ago
      The concept of Socialism presupposes a powerful state. Both communism and basic income include the notion of income distribution as an antidote to strong government controls. I agree there's nothing inherently "bad" about these ideas, I just wish we wouldn't invent new terms for old ideas, just because the older terms have gotten a (perhaps undeservedly) bad reputation.
- tunap 13y ago
  How would that work from a free market standpoint? What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. I cannot recall the historical character at the moment, but I recall reading of a benevolent king(central or south american?) who give all his subjects generous amounts of gold to the effect that it crashed their economy. Anyone? edit:reword last sentence
  - lotharbot 13y ago
    As far as I know, everyone has a baseline amount of money in our society -- it's just that it comes from a lot of disparate sources. Some people get their baseline from a combination of housing vouchers, food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlements; others get their baseline from working 2 McJobs; others have good jobs that provide way beyond the baseline. If the baseline is provided in a more straightforward way (and, presumably, taxes on above-baseline amounts are raised accordingly) there may be very little economic distortion from the present state.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    >What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"?
    - tunap 13y ago
      I had to Goog it, but I guess you're questioning whether I refer to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism I guess so, I am not an economist. That seems to be the cycle repeated since the dawn of human interactions, however. With scarcity comes demand, market sets price... and the rest of the spiel. A game that has been gamed long before we came along, but yeah, that seems to be how it works historically.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
brazzy 13y ago
> Workers in Germany average a little over 35 hours a week, compared to the 42 hours worked in the UK. Flat out wrong as per the source cited. The difference is only 0.7 hours, both for full time employees and for all employees (the numbers above mix the two). > German law guarantees 30 working days of vacation per year (and I am told medical leave for attending a spa resort on top of that). Nope, it's 29 days on average, but only 20 mandated by law (for a 5 day working week). And medical leave is, of course, only available if you actually have medical problems (and paid for by your health insurance or retirement provider).
- mcormier 13y ago
  Thank you for clarifying. Too often North Americans state "it's like this in Europe", without researching what the actual facts are like. I have Uncles who are still quoting facts that are 30 years old and may never have been accurate to begin with ;)
  - semanticist 13y ago
    For the record, Stross is not North American: he lives in Scotland.
    - mcormier 13y ago
      Yeah, I haven't read this article yet. I got whisked away on an article referenced at the beginning of this one and my world view imploded. http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- odonnellryan 13y ago
  20 is awesome. The US requires none, most employers give 5-10 days (salary positions or professionals).
molsongolden 13y ago
This is a stressful topic that gets overwhelming quickly. Things are shifting but it's a slow shift and one that is going to be extremely painful before it gets better. Some interesting work going on with worker coops, parecon, post-scarcity economics, etc... As one of the linked comments noted "Looks like we've built higher-phase communism accidentally. Ooops." The Keynes article he briefly touches on is fantastic http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchildren.htm http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1... "Yet there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and of abundance without a dread. For we have been trained too long to strive and not to enjoy. It is a fearful problem for the ordinary person, with no special talents, to occupy himself, especially if he no longer has roots in the soil or in custom or in the beloved conventions of a traditional society. To judge from the behaviour and the achievements of the wealthy classes to-day in any quarter of the world, the outlook is very depressing! For these are, so to speak, our advance guard – those who are spying out the promised land for the rest of us and pitching their camp there. For they have most of them failed disastrously, so it seems to me – those who have an independent income but no associations or duties or ties – to solve the problem which has been set them. I feel sure that with a little more experience we shall use the new-found bounty of nature quite differently from the way in which the rich use it to-day, and will map out for ourselves a plan of life quite otherwise than theirs. For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter – to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us! "
- harshreality 13y ago
  Not needing everyone to work doesn't necessarily mean we're post-scarcity, which means someone has to decide how to allocate scarce resources, in coordination with the people or companies that run and maintain the mostly-automated systems, and that's where the extreme pain shows up.
- 13y ago
logfromblammo 13y ago
Here's a thought experiment. Mr. Myne has invented an extraordinary machine. This one machine can, using polluted air and brackish water as material inputs, produce a nutritious food substitute and potable water for one person for one entire day with less than $1.30 of grid power. The 2000 kcal daily diet uses about 8000 kcal of electricity and 10 L of dirty water. With this machine, a person can avoid starvation and dehydration for less than $500 per year. But Mr. Myne owns the machines. He will lease them out for the low, low price of $8 per day. That's cheap for 100% of your daily nutrition! You still have to pay for the electricity and water yourself, which is about $1.50 a day. There's the hypothetical. Now here's the experiment. What happens if people decide to stop paying Mr. Myne to use his machines?
- mjmahone17 13y ago
  This is why patents ought to be property in the same sense that land or leases are property, and the govt. ought to be able to use eminent domain on them. Pay Mr. Myne a lot for his contribution to society, but then make sure that even the least-well-off can take advantage of this newfound material wealth without exploitation.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    While there is no single right answer here, I think maybe you have stumbled across one of the many possible wrong answers. If you haven't already figured it out, Mr. Myne represents the owner-investor class, his machine represents future industrial capital, and your solution was to use the government to seize control of the capital.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      ...discouraging anyone else from getting into the "Myne machine" industry. Why bother if others are just going to out-vote him, put a gun to one's head, and seize control?
  - wtbob 13y ago
    Patents are property which is automatically taken by eminent domain when the patent term expires.
rjzzleep 13y ago
funny i was talking about something similar with a friend last night. think about this: in a lot of professions it's common to study about up to 10 years before you start working. that's after 12-13 years of school(unless you're a professional athlete) you study for a quarter century. think about it. a quarter of a century. that's the height of your youth. then you're allowed to work for 40 years so you can "enjoy" your retirement(provided you still get any retirement at that time). that's by the way the time when you have pain all over your body, wake up at 4 am and go to bed at 9. who's winning here? who are we kidding?
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  in a lot of professions it's common to study about up to 10 years before you start working. that's after 12-13 years of school(unless you're a professional athlete Give three examples. Just graduated doctors get paid while they're doing further study and specialisation, ditto for lawyers and doctoral students mostly get paid, albeit very badly.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    My wife spent 8 unpaid years in education (4 years first degree, 2 year LLB, 1 year mandatory post-grad, 1 year devilling to be an Advocate) - with a 2 year trainee period before the devilling. That was 8 years unpaid, 2 years low pay.
    - barry-cotter 13y ago
      So there was a four year unnecessary mistake degree/degree as consumption not investment, right? One can get an Ll.B. in three years in the UK. Does mandatory postgrad actually mean mandatory or is it just a way of throwing out all other applicants?
      - arethuza 13y ago
        Yes, but I'm not in England, and first degrees are 4 years here (for an Hons). Getting a first degree and then an LLB is the more traditional route to qualifying as a solicitor and indeed the government department where she trained had it as a requirement - they only looked at trainees that had two first degrees. Mind you, in reality the first degree was a mistake at the time but when she did learn how the legal system actually works (not written down anywhere, of course) having two degrees was regarded as a very good thing and more "respectable" than doing it as a first degree (can't think of a better term). It used to be pretty common - and was frankly a class thing.
mjmahone17 13y ago
One of the biggest views I see in my parents and grandparents: work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure. This is really hard to respond to, especially with people who have spent 50 years working with this mindset, because they feel "invalidated" or "worthless" if their life's worth isn't measured by their work output. I don't think that's necessarily a "bad" world view to have, especially if it pushes you to provide some social good that you wouldn't if you thought it was OK to be lazy. But I think it's harmful to impose that view on others. If you have no choice but to work or be discarded, then, when the value you can provide via work is less than that required to maintain your life, you have no choice but to attempt to indenture yourself. And failing that, you're truly, completely fucked. The purpose of entitlements ought to be (though currently aren't) to provide reassurance against a requirement to sell yourself to survive. And I truly believe, if we don't correct this failing of entitlements, then we will see mass indentured servitude (though it won't be called that), in developed countries, in my lifetime, of citizens of said country. Currently, we already see mass indentured servitude, but we say it's not that big a deal because [1] The indentured are immigrants [2] The indentured are in un-developed countries [3] The indentured are "ghetto", "whore", or "gangster", which is seen as pretty equivalent to [2]
- vijayr 13y ago
  work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure Regardless of age, I guess most people feel this way (not just the previous generations - even the people in their 20's and 30's today). What is the alternative to this? If not work - what is important? what makes one person a success and another a failure, and what gives purpose and dignity to life, in your opinion?
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Which is completely opposite from Antic times, during which work was considered demeaning, because, hey we got slaves to do that stuff. Going out to the field and harvesting was looked upon same as now is rolling in shit. You could do it but highly degrading. Arts and philosophy were all the rage.
tomp 13y ago
> Why should we not divert some of our growth into growing our leisure time, rather than growing our physical wealth? Because not everyone was created equal. Some professions are completely worthless (e.g. ad creators) and add nothing net to the society. Others, e.g. doctors, are so valuable, and so few people can do them, that they simply can't afford to work less (educating more doctors so that they can work fewer hours is not an answer - I'm not a doctor, but I imagine it takes a relatively fixed amount of hours of training to actually "become a doctor" (after finishing your education), so if doctors worked less, they would be worse doctors). The social contract then dictates that everyone must work, since doctors have to work. Solution: automate medicine, energy, food.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  We're on a road to that. I've read about robot surgeons. Very few mistakes, perfectly clean. Problem is what do we do with spare doctors? Research?
  - epaladin 13y ago
    Right now surgery robots like the Da Vinci aren't automated. They have to be controlled by someone at the moment.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  The number of teaching spots for doctors is not necessarily well exposed to the market (various regulations). It's unlikely that all the interested and capable people are able to become doctors. It's also possible to imagine a social contract that gives working people more, I'm not sure we have to stick with the one you see.
- beat 13y ago
  As Bob Black pointed out in The Abolition of Work, if a job is worth doing, someone would do it, whether or not they got paid to do it. Charlie Stross made that point in his essay - he'd continue to be a writer even if he didn't need to write for a living. The same is true of doctors. And farmers. And firemen.
ds9 13y ago
The author points out that it's possible in some sense to have a world with less work, OK material standards, more leisure and less unhappiness. People would still work, social/technological advancement would still occur, but people would be more content and maybe many would move to jobs that would make more of their talents. This, however, is looking only at big numbers on a macro level. It ignores all the things which have prevented this outcome from actually happening. These include (1) incentives (2) ideology. 1. If employer A allows less than 40 hour work weeks, or more vacation, he can be beaten out in the market by employer B which mandates longer hours and produces more per time period. Employees might prefer A over B, but they have so little bargaining power that this will not stop B. If the same requirements are imposed on all employers, then the country will be out-competed by others. 2. Conservatives criticize any such proposal with an argument like this: "You should be free to use your property as you wish, including by having people work as long as you can get them to agree to. And everything is already owned, so the only way to provide more for one person is to take away from another, and it's wrong to take money or other values from people who have earned them, to give to others who have not earned them." Regardless of the merits of the argument, it is effective with the public, and politicians use it effectively to protect the owners. This can never change unless someone can present a contrary view that can be stated in equally pithy sound-bites and which is equally convincing for large numbers of voters (in democratic countries, basically W. Europe and parts of S. America) or unless a large enough segment commit to a revolution (in the rest of the countries which are not democratic).
fidotron 13y ago
This looks like a lot of words to disguise the fact it's neo-luddism. With technological progress worker roles are eliminated, but the idea is that the market has demand for new currently non-existent things and as the progress enables those things to come into existence creating new jobs as it goes. The much larger problem is people are genuinely getting conditioned to receiving a lot for nothing, and this has distorted the market in terms of what activities are most highly rewarded. For example, easy credit means selling to people that don't have the money (or the means) is actually very lucrative, so you get a lot of otherwise smart people engaged in activities to extract money from those with easy credit as opposed to applying their talents to contributing more positively to the system as a whole.
- chc 13y ago
  You are making three claims here: 1) That technology replaces jobs. 2) That there is a vast untapped well of jobs that will be created as Point 1 progresses. 3) That the number of jobs in Point 2 is greater the number of jobs in Point 1. Disagreeing with Points 2 or 3 doesn't make someone a neo-Luddite. Those claims are more about the economy than about technology. I haven't seen any reason to accept them as true. Obviously some new jobs will open up, but the idea that there is a sufficient pool of jobs that are worth a comfortable wage isn't in evidence as far as I can tell.
- jal278 13y ago
  > With technological progress worker roles are eliminated, but the idea is that the market has demand for new currently non-existent things and as the progress enables those things to come into existence creating new jobs as it goes. The author is arguing that this isn't always the case. You can't take it as an axiom that the market will always have need for employing everyone. For example, as automation becomes more sophisticated, the intelligence needed to use or modulate that automation may increase. As that base requirement rises, more people may become structurally unemployable. In the limit, if there is little that humans can do better than computers, there is little need to employ many humans.
  - handzhiev 13y ago
Theodores 13y ago
Our economies also have this tendency to siphon off surplus and spend it on expensive military projects such as wars. There is the general year in year out expenditure on new military toys, keeping the nuclear 'deterrent' up to date and keeping those boys polishing their boots. We don't get a proper tax breakdown on this expenditure so I would only be guessing as to how much is really spent. On top of this regular expenditure are the billions that have been spent bombing Afghanistan and Iraq to pieces. We have been saddled with debt to pay for that and it won't be the politicians that will be personally paying that off. Although a lot of people don't wish to see it that way, war is a racket. Nobody would bother unless there was money to be made. The waste goes far beyond the lives lost and the taxes diverted, there is also a real loss of valuable materials and energy resources. It is all an incredible waste yet we are always told that 'defence' is good for jobs. Given the default option for siphoning off the 'fruits of capitalist surplus' is more and more bombs and weapons, that is kind of what we all work for in our variously inane jobs. Isn't this a fantastic situation?
- mahyarm 13y ago
  Military expenditures are about %4.2 [1] of GDP, compared lets say the financial sector which has increased to %8.4 from it's under %3 level in the 1950s[2]. Or the healthcare sector, which consumes 17.4% of GDP in the USA[3]. Compared to the typical average of ~%11 for countries with socialized medicine. Most of the US tax expenditure goes towards social security and medicare. But your talking about a governmental system that can print it's own currency and is the reserve currency of the world, so even that is a bit wonky to think about. If the USA fixed it's regulatory health care mess, broke the artificial supply constraints on doctors, made medical devices not have %1000+ profit margins and socialized their healthcare, they would save more GDP than liquidating the US military. Shrinking the financial sector back to its 1950's % of GDP would also pay for the military. Our relatively small software industry is under %2 in 2007.[4] 1. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_Stat... 4. http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-GDP-is-the-US-software-industry http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-GDP-is-the-US-softwa...
skittles 13y ago
A free-market society would never average a 15 hour work week unless there's no incentive to pay for the work anymore. This could happen if we find a limitless energy source and real artificial intelligence. As long as someone is willing to pay for hours of work, people will be willing to work more than 15 hours a week to get ahead.
- semanticist 13y ago
  Why? No, seriously, if I can work 15 hours a week and live comfortably, why is there an automatic assumption that I'd need to work more just because other people are prepared to do that? What does 'get ahead' even mean, in that context? There's so many social and cultural assumptions bound up in your statement that it's nearly meaningless for anyone who isn't you.
  - habosa 13y ago
    People don't just want to do well, they want to do better than those around them. it's natural to many people (maybe not to you, but to many). I read this quote from a wall street executive in an article recently posted on HN: " “It's not just enough to fly in first class; I have to know my friends are flying in coach." So unless nobody is selling first class tickets, people will work harder to afford them. And in order for the market to work, the seller of tickets will raise the price of first class until only ~10% of flying passengers can afford it.
    - semanticist 13y ago
      I don't think your Wall Street exec is expressing a common viewpoint. In fact, I think he's probably a sociopath, and if we can architecture a society which is actively hostile to those kind of attitudes I think it could only be a good thing.
danford 13y ago
Great article. One of the things that many people have an aversion to when it comes to this kind of thing is the "socialist" aspect of it. We all agree that it's great, but is it for everybody? I totally see where libertarians come from. They want A LOT of freedom. But why can't we have it both ways? One of the reasons socialism is hard to maintain is because of how spread out things can be, I think we can all agree that with socialism you inevitably have to force people to do certain things so that society can work (for example, live in a certain place), and this is much easier to do in a small location, but what's stopping us from having two sets of laws governing two areas of land? You can fit everyone in the US into an area the size of Jacksonville Fl., so why not just establish "tech-metros" which are open to anyone and provide basic necessities in a socialized fashion, and use automation and digitalization to provide goods and services, while designating certain swaths of land out side these places as under a different set of laws that are more libertarian in nature? I believe ~60% of people would flock to the "tech-metros" while the remaining portion would attempt life in a more privatized fashion out side of them. With a more centralized "sub-government" in charge of these small areas, and with it being easy to come and go as you please, it should be easier to take care of the masses that want to be taken care of and let the masses who don't want to be taken care of take care of themselves. Now that's just a couple paragraphs on a very radical idea, so there are a lot of details being left out, but imho this idea provides the most happiness along with the least destruction.
terranstyler 13y ago
There is a big fallacy in the article: Namely, that the amount of work that can be done has an upper bound. In fact, the amount of work that can be be done is infinite and with higher productivity other things are done (= can be done economically) than before, for example: Cleaning the streets, painting your house white, keeping your nearby river clean, build tanks & guns, maintaining bureaucracy, helping people you don't know (welfare state). These things are all non-essential (yeah yeah I know but still ...), yet are only done now because only recently we achieved the productivity / wealth of being able to do it. If we stop doing these things we will feel wealthier because individually, we'll have more resources to fulfill our needs. We would maybe still help our neighbours or paint our house white or buy guns but we would (or not) do it because we decided it ourselves. I suppose in the future there will be other things we'll do that now seem insane: maybe even the poorest might have a swimming pool, or we commute a few thousand kilometers to work, or we each carry a wearable computer around without needing it for work (can you imagine???). But there will be work, it is as certain as death and taxes.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  The complementary fallacy also in the article: the amount of work required has a lower bound of zero. Survival isn't free. We consume (destroy) just to maintain a lowest-common-denominator status quo. The Red Queen was right: we need to run (work) hard just to keep up with staying where we are (98 degrees F). To keep two people at that state of basic survival while one does nothing to produce whatever's needed to maintain their fair share, the other has to work twice as hard - and without some suitable incentive, the one working will lose interest in doing so. Yes, we're in a wealthy society. We're at this level because everyone, on the whole, works hard and pitches in. If a growing subset decide to just bask in the luxury, it's all going to come crashing down. As tax season approaches, I'm reminded of how much is taken from me - making it hard to do what I consider essential for my family, and making me reconsider my role in society; take enough from me, and I can go "off grid" pretty fast. Remember the goose who laid golden eggs.
raldi 13y ago
This article is predicated on the idea that, because we're more efficient today than 1930, we should be able to work less and live the same lifestyle. Well, in fact, we can. But you can't ignore those last three words: you have to live the same lifestyle as a typical 1930s person. * No internet. * No TV. * No air conditioning. * No cell phone. * No car. * Bunk beds for your kids. * One bathroom for the whole house. * No flying, anywhere, ever. * No fancy restaurants. * No organic groceries. The reason we're still working 1930 hours in 2014 is that we prefer it -- that is, we prefer the rich lifestyle those hours provide us.
- angersock 13y ago
  What? That's quite silly. On the internet/TV for example, you are failing to take into account the spread of tech and efficiency. We can have factories produce TVs automatically, and internet infrastructure doesn't require a huge number of people to keep it running--and most of them, I wager, would be happy to keep doing what they're doing, because it's fun. As for fancy restaurants or organic groceries...that's just a function of cooking something well and having something to cook. If you're not working all the time, you are more likely to be able to help in your community garden. I'm sorry, but your assertion isn't borne out by thought.
  - bqe 13y ago
    Internet infrastructure actually does require a somewhat large number of people and it is quite fragile. I never would have though a fiber cut (which seems to happen almost weekly) would have such a large impact, but it does. I figured BGP would reroute around that and to some extent it does, but there's still a lot of manual route handling.
  - raldi 13y ago
    I think you misinterpreted my comment as if it were about what "we" as a society could do, but I meant it as a comment about what any of us as an individual could do.
    - angersock 13y ago
netcan 13y ago
If you're feeling unbiased enough to try and ignore what certain words mean to use today, you may want to ready Oscar Wilde's take on these things from a 19th century point of view. If the words "Socialist" or "Marxist" mean something much more livid to you than " Romanticism" or "Postmodernism," you are not allowed to read the linked article^ http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/ http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-m... ^I was considering banning Americans from reading this article. I'm allowing it for now, but please behave.
- mcguire 13y ago
  Speaking as an American, I cannot see anything much more livid than "Romanticism", except "Postmodernism".
  - netcan 13y ago
    OK. You have permission to read Oscar Wilde.
habosa 13y ago
The discussion here (http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra...) which is linked from the original post is, imo, more interesting and thought provoking. I think most people can immediately identify with the idea of "working" 40 hours while really only doing 15 hours of hard work and 25 hours of paper pushing and procrastinating. Maybe not in your current job but almost certainly in some job you once held. I think this is a product of work culture. There are, at almost every halfway useful company, a number of truly busy people. These people have 40 hours of things to do every week, or at least need 40 hours to properly instruct their subordinates. However it is often the case that they only really need 15h of hard work from each subordinate. The issue is that it's not culturally acceptable to say to your boss "I just did all you need from me this week in a few hours, I'm going to the beach now". So such a worker faces the choice of either speaking up and asking for more work, or dragging out the minimal work they have to do until it takes an "acceptable" amount of time. Since time is our most valuable asset the culture of a company is considered fair when people are giving relatively equal time sacrifices to the task at hand. I know I have been lucky enough to have a manager that was not offended if I finished all of my work early and left, but 99% of people never have that luxury. It's psychological, most people don't want others to get off easy.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  I've heard about almost this exact situation. A brilliant developer I knew when I worked for a Smalltalk vendor (one who made a seminal contribution to his programming community that went on to influence almost every other programming community) was working as a contractor for a telecom. He found that he could get all of his assignments for the week done in 1 or 2 days. Basically, his manager told him to do more work each week, so that the suffering would be distributed evenly.
- digikata 13y ago
  It's something of an efficiency fallacy that keeping all resources (people and/or machines, etc) 100% occupied is the best way to get highest system productivity. Unfortunately, the assumption is baked-in to a lot of our work culture. Regarding people, good reading in this concept is Goldratt's, "The Goal"[1]. There are more technical approaches of the concept. But, the novel is great in terms of getting a visceral feel of why there are busy resources, but at the same time you need idle resources within the same pipeline for good system performance. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel)
stcredzero 13y ago
I left a job where I was basically paid to be the other guy with a heartbeat who knows Smalltalk. I did nothing but browse all day, and it was soul crushing. (Also responsible for a significant chunk of my HN karma.) http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-06-02/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-06-02/

307 points by semanticist 13y ago

An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

levosmetalo 13y ago
Basic income would be just a step up to the ultimate goal of Star Trek style economy. I guess that having basic income would help cut on those 'bullshit jobs' that don't actually benefit anyone and are just a net negative for the society.
- happyscrappy 13y ago
  What are these bullshit jobs? If cutting them has no effect then there is a profit to be had.
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    Many positions in the public administration fit the pattern.
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    From the article, those are jobs that "have no benefit for person working", and "have no benefit for the rest of the society". Why we do work them? Because they benefit the small group that is powerful enough to force society to do net negative thing.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Not the author, but there are undoubtedly plenty of stimulus jobs created by the government that could be cut. Smart parking meters (that accept credit cards, and that let you reup time with your phone) for example, could dramatically adjust the number of positions available for meter maids / parking enforcement officers. USPS is probably going to have to shift at some point to... something different. The federal government spends $25 billion maintaining vacant properties, and owns more than 50,000 vacant homes. That probably doesn't equate to job elimination, but there's got to be some kind of opportunity there. Toll booths for toll roads have got to be on the way out, right? I mean, not saying EZ Pass is the best, or most ubiquitous, but we've got speed cameras that map to DMV databases such that if I run a toll, I already get a bill in the mail -- add a new question at the DMV for 'email address' and stop sending paper bills and you've got a business model.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    See Q5 of http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minister_qa.htm http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minis... A hospital with no nurses, doctors or patients only administrative staff.
  - glesica 13y ago
    I see you've never worked in a large organization... ;-) Bullshit jobs are largely jobs that managers create and defend in order to expand their managerial fiefdoms. A manager's influence in an organization comes partially from how many people report to him or her. That's the incentive structure that creates many of the bullshit jobs. There are also interpersonal issues in play. For instance, you or I might walk into a particular company and observe a dozen different processes that could be easily automated with off-the-shelf software but are currently being done by humans. We might say to the manager "Why don't you automate, you're wasting money?!". In some cases, the manager would reply that the people doing those jobs are valued employees, possibly even friends, and automating those processes would put them out of work and thus, the processes are not automated. It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient.
    - npsimons 13y ago
      It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient. I like to point this out to anyone who says "well, a business wouldn't do it if it made them less efficient", eg the case of open floor plans for programmers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280
    - happyscrappy 13y ago
      >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Operating more efficiently is exactly what is destroying jobs. Middle managers are an easy target but I fail to see how there are enough of them to move the needles.
    - Consultant32452 13y ago
      >It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. I think the purpose of this adage is that businesses operate more efficiently than government entities. Not with perfect efficiency.
  - acomar 13y ago
    It's worse than that -- I've heard stories from friends in government agencies of people who do net-negative work (i.e. they create work for others) and keep their jobs for political/societal/social reasons.
    - drdeadringer 13y ago
      I recall the following: "The factory at the edge of town has two employees -- a Human, and a dog. The Human's job is to feed the dog. The dog's job is to keep the Human away from the machines."
  - ansible 13y ago
    Telemarketers. Door-to-door cable TV sales. Most of the paper-pushers in the USA's medical care system (assuming we go to single payer system as well). A large percentage of retail workers (in the USA we have way more retail space than is really necessary). Most of the mid-level managers in most of the large corporations. Any place that has strict union work-rules is usually overstaffed to my eye. Much of the administration of social services (Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.) in the USA (to all be replaced by that basic living stipend). I can think of more.
yaddayadda 13y ago
"Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes..." or simply refer to us as Sisyphians.
- spbaar 13y ago
  We can only hope that basic income allows them to read more books.
bausson 13y ago
Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filling the ranks (let's say: food industry, waiter, marts cashiers (or the people filling the mart at night), ... But education industry (and universities) would have to change their methods, because nowadays peoples are willing to commit 100,000's of $ to get a well paying job, this incentive would be gone, the better paying one being the physical labor, with low education requirement. I also wonder if people would go with their lives the same way they do now. I, for one, would get one of those hard, high-paying job straight out of high school for a few year, enough to buy a house and save a bit, then go to university (or self-studying with internet classes, choosing some classes in common with friends) and study whatever I found get my interest. TL;DR: I'm all for Basic Income, mainly because I don't see any long-terme viable alterative, and also because the changes it would bring to society would be really interesting to study.
- Theodores 13y ago
  You mention garbage collection, this is actually an interesting job for those that do it in Reading, UK. Reading has had the benefit of 'negative unemployment', as in more jobs than people, so how do you recruit people to collect the garbage? It actually works out well for some that do it, by starting at '4 a.m.' they finish early afternoon, around about lunch time and can be around when their kids get out of school. They also get paid rather well, as in £40K, which is well above minimum wage. They are also working, whereas chances are that 'Microsoft', 'Vodafone' or any of the other big-brand, knowledge economy employers of the area probably would not employ them. The garbage collector in Reading is quite likely to want to hold onto his/her job as it makes a lot of life possible, even if it does come with the 'stigma' of being in the 'recycling business' (okay, being a bin man!). I must say that the situation in Reading is an anomaly, it may not even exist any more, but five years ago it was a cushy number, I had friends doing it. Compare this situation to collecting the garbage in a rural no-jobs area. Here the job pays minimum wage and nobody sticks at it for very long. There is no benefit in doing it as the money is barely any more than income support and any overtime is swallowed up by tax. Consequently there is a high amount of churn as people give it a go to get off the employment register and prove to the government that they are willing to work, then, one way or another, they jack it in. So how would that work out in a 'basic income' economy in some rural town where there are no jobs? I think it would still work out rather well, even if the pay was £10K after tax + Basic Income. It would make the difference between having a subsistence style existence and one where one could cook nice meals for the kids and buy them all the things they need. Even a holiday could be afforded, subject to budgeting ability.
psaintla 13y ago
It would be interesting to see if having some level of universal basic income and universal healthcare would be far better than having many federal, state and local departments dealing with distribution of a wide array of various government services.
drcode 13y ago
FYI, I created an infographic recently that teaches people all the details they need to know about basic income: http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png http://i.imgur.com/eRuO1ix.png
- lotharbot 13y ago
  Milton Friedman was a strong proponent of (a variant of) Basic Income.
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  This system leaves out the "from each according to his ability"[1] part that's the root of totalitarian regimes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
- kemayo 13y ago
  Hardly. Communism is a system in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. (It's more complicated than that, but y'know...) A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. (Again, more complicated really.) But there's nothing wrong with Socialism. It's a bad word in America, for historical reasons, despite being fairly widely implemented within that country.
  - erichocean 13y ago
    > A Basic Income policy is totally Socialism, which is a system in which the economy is cooperatively managed. Disagree. Provision of money and "co-operative management" are two separate concepts. You can do either, both, or none.
  - drcode 13y ago
    The concept of Socialism presupposes a powerful state. Both communism and basic income include the notion of income distribution as an antidote to strong government controls. I agree there's nothing inherently "bad" about these ideas, I just wish we wouldn't invent new terms for old ideas, just because the older terms have gotten a (perhaps undeservedly) bad reputation.
tunap 13y ago
How would that work from a free market standpoint? What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. I cannot recall the historical character at the moment, but I recall reading of a benevolent king(central or south american?) who give all his subjects generous amounts of gold to the effect that it crashed their economy. Anyone? edit:reword last sentence
- lotharbot 13y ago
  As far as I know, everyone has a baseline amount of money in our society -- it's just that it comes from a lot of disparate sources. Some people get their baseline from a combination of housing vouchers, food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlements; others get their baseline from working 2 McJobs; others have good jobs that provide way beyond the baseline. If the baseline is provided in a more straightforward way (and, presumably, taxes on above-baseline amounts are raised accordingly) there may be very little economic distortion from the present state.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  >What I mean is, when everyone has a baseline amount of money, the relative scarcity is diminished and the market prices will inflate as the value of money(real & perceived) decreases. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"?
  - tunap 13y ago
    I had to Goog it, but I guess you're questioning whether I refer to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism I guess so, I am not an economist. That seems to be the cycle repeated since the dawn of human interactions, however. With scarcity comes demand, market sets price... and the rest of the spiel. A game that has been gamed long before we came along, but yeah, that seems to be how it works historically.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago

brazzy 13y ago

> Workers in Germany average a little over 35 hours a week, compared to the 42 hours worked in the UK. Flat out wrong as per the source cited. The difference is only 0.7 hours, both for full time employees and for all employees (the numbers above mix the two). > German law guarantees 30 working days of vacation per year (and I am told medical leave for attending a spa resort on top of that). Nope, it's 29 days on average, but only 20 mandated by law (for a 5 day working week). And medical leave is, of course, only available if you actually have medical problems (and paid for by your health insurance or retirement provider).

mcormier 13y ago
Thank you for clarifying. Too often North Americans state "it's like this in Europe", without researching what the actual facts are like. I have Uncles who are still quoting facts that are 30 years old and may never have been accurate to begin with ;)
- semanticist 13y ago
  For the record, Stross is not North American: he lives in Scotland.
  - mcormier 13y ago
    Yeah, I haven't read this article yet. I got whisked away on an article referenced at the beginning of this one and my world view imploded. http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
odonnellryan 13y ago
20 is awesome. The US requires none, most employers give 5-10 days (salary positions or professionals).

molsongolden 13y ago

This is a stressful topic that gets overwhelming quickly. Things are shifting but it's a slow shift and one that is going to be extremely painful before it gets better. Some interesting work going on with worker coops, parecon, post-scarcity economics, etc... As one of the linked comments noted "Looks like we've built higher-phase communism accidentally. Ooops." The Keynes article he briefly touches on is fantastic http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchildren.htm http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1... "Yet there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and of abundance without a dread. For we have been trained too long to strive and not to enjoy. It is a fearful problem for the ordinary person, with no special talents, to occupy himself, especially if he no longer has roots in the soil or in custom or in the beloved conventions of a traditional society. To judge from the behaviour and the achievements of the wealthy classes to-day in any quarter of the world, the outlook is very depressing! For these are, so to speak, our advance guard – those who are spying out the promised land for the rest of us and pitching their camp there. For they have most of them failed disastrously, so it seems to me – those who have an independent income but no associations or duties or ties – to solve the problem which has been set them. I feel sure that with a little more experience we shall use the new-found bounty of nature quite differently from the way in which the rich use it to-day, and will map out for ourselves a plan of life quite otherwise than theirs. For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter – to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us! "

harshreality 13y ago
Not needing everyone to work doesn't necessarily mean we're post-scarcity, which means someone has to decide how to allocate scarce resources, in coordination with the people or companies that run and maintain the mostly-automated systems, and that's where the extreme pain shows up.
13y ago

logfromblammo 13y ago

Here's a thought experiment. Mr. Myne has invented an extraordinary machine. This one machine can, using polluted air and brackish water as material inputs, produce a nutritious food substitute and potable water for one person for one entire day with less than $1.30 of grid power. The 2000 kcal daily diet uses about 8000 kcal of electricity and 10 L of dirty water. With this machine, a person can avoid starvation and dehydration for less than $500 per year. But Mr. Myne owns the machines. He will lease them out for the low, low price of $8 per day. That's cheap for 100% of your daily nutrition! You still have to pay for the electricity and water yourself, which is about $1.50 a day. There's the hypothetical. Now here's the experiment. What happens if people decide to stop paying Mr. Myne to use his machines?

mjmahone17 13y ago
This is why patents ought to be property in the same sense that land or leases are property, and the govt. ought to be able to use eminent domain on them. Pay Mr. Myne a lot for his contribution to society, but then make sure that even the least-well-off can take advantage of this newfound material wealth without exploitation.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  While there is no single right answer here, I think maybe you have stumbled across one of the many possible wrong answers. If you haven't already figured it out, Mr. Myne represents the owner-investor class, his machine represents future industrial capital, and your solution was to use the government to seize control of the capital.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    ...discouraging anyone else from getting into the "Myne machine" industry. Why bother if others are just going to out-vote him, put a gun to one's head, and seize control?
- wtbob 13y ago
  Patents are property which is automatically taken by eminent domain when the patent term expires.

rjzzleep 13y ago

funny i was talking about something similar with a friend last night. think about this: in a lot of professions it's common to study about up to 10 years before you start working. that's after 12-13 years of school(unless you're a professional athlete) you study for a quarter century. think about it. a quarter of a century. that's the height of your youth. then you're allowed to work for 40 years so you can "enjoy" your retirement(provided you still get any retirement at that time). that's by the way the time when you have pain all over your body, wake up at 4 am and go to bed at 9. who's winning here? who are we kidding?

barry-cotter 13y ago
in a lot of professions it's common to study about up to 10 years before you start working. that's after 12-13 years of school(unless you're a professional athlete Give three examples. Just graduated doctors get paid while they're doing further study and specialisation, ditto for lawyers and doctoral students mostly get paid, albeit very badly.
- arethuza 13y ago
  My wife spent 8 unpaid years in education (4 years first degree, 2 year LLB, 1 year mandatory post-grad, 1 year devilling to be an Advocate) - with a 2 year trainee period before the devilling. That was 8 years unpaid, 2 years low pay.
  - barry-cotter 13y ago
    So there was a four year unnecessary mistake degree/degree as consumption not investment, right? One can get an Ll.B. in three years in the UK. Does mandatory postgrad actually mean mandatory or is it just a way of throwing out all other applicants?
    - arethuza 13y ago
      Yes, but I'm not in England, and first degrees are 4 years here (for an Hons). Getting a first degree and then an LLB is the more traditional route to qualifying as a solicitor and indeed the government department where she trained had it as a requirement - they only looked at trainees that had two first degrees. Mind you, in reality the first degree was a mistake at the time but when she did learn how the legal system actually works (not written down anywhere, of course) having two degrees was regarded as a very good thing and more "respectable" than doing it as a first degree (can't think of a better term). It used to be pretty common - and was frankly a class thing.

mjmahone17 13y ago

One of the biggest views I see in my parents and grandparents: work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure. This is really hard to respond to, especially with people who have spent 50 years working with this mindset, because they feel "invalidated" or "worthless" if their life's worth isn't measured by their work output. I don't think that's necessarily a "bad" world view to have, especially if it pushes you to provide some social good that you wouldn't if you thought it was OK to be lazy. But I think it's harmful to impose that view on others. If you have no choice but to work or be discarded, then, when the value you can provide via work is less than that required to maintain your life, you have no choice but to attempt to indenture yourself. And failing that, you're truly, completely fucked. The purpose of entitlements ought to be (though currently aren't) to provide reassurance against a requirement to sell yourself to survive. And I truly believe, if we don't correct this failing of entitlements, then we will see mass indentured servitude (though it won't be called that), in developed countries, in my lifetime, of citizens of said country. Currently, we already see mass indentured servitude, but we say it's not that big a deal because [1] The indentured are immigrants [2] The indentured are in un-developed countries [3] The indentured are "ghetto", "whore", or "gangster", which is seen as pretty equivalent to [2]

vijayr 13y ago
work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure Regardless of age, I guess most people feel this way (not just the previous generations - even the people in their 20's and 30's today). What is the alternative to this? If not work - what is important? what makes one person a success and another a failure, and what gives purpose and dignity to life, in your opinion?
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Which is completely opposite from Antic times, during which work was considered demeaning, because, hey we got slaves to do that stuff. Going out to the field and harvesting was looked upon same as now is rolling in shit. You could do it but highly degrading. Arts and philosophy were all the rage.

tomp 13y ago

> Why should we not divert some of our growth into growing our leisure time, rather than growing our physical wealth? Because not everyone was created equal. Some professions are completely worthless (e.g. ad creators) and add nothing net to the society. Others, e.g. doctors, are so valuable, and so few people can do them, that they simply can't afford to work less (educating more doctors so that they can work fewer hours is not an answer - I'm not a doctor, but I imagine it takes a relatively fixed amount of hours of training to actually "become a doctor" (after finishing your education), so if doctors worked less, they would be worse doctors). The social contract then dictates that everyone must work, since doctors have to work. Solution: automate medicine, energy, food.

Ygg2 13y ago
We're on a road to that. I've read about robot surgeons. Very few mistakes, perfectly clean. Problem is what do we do with spare doctors? Research?
- epaladin 13y ago
  Right now surgery robots like the Da Vinci aren't automated. They have to be controlled by someone at the moment.
maxerickson 13y ago
The number of teaching spots for doctors is not necessarily well exposed to the market (various regulations). It's unlikely that all the interested and capable people are able to become doctors. It's also possible to imagine a social contract that gives working people more, I'm not sure we have to stick with the one you see.
beat 13y ago
As Bob Black pointed out in The Abolition of Work, if a job is worth doing, someone would do it, whether or not they got paid to do it. Charlie Stross made that point in his essay - he'd continue to be a writer even if he didn't need to write for a living. The same is true of doctors. And farmers. And firemen.

ds9 13y ago

The author points out that it's possible in some sense to have a world with less work, OK material standards, more leisure and less unhappiness. People would still work, social/technological advancement would still occur, but people would be more content and maybe many would move to jobs that would make more of their talents. This, however, is looking only at big numbers on a macro level. It ignores all the things which have prevented this outcome from actually happening. These include (1) incentives (2) ideology. 1. If employer A allows less than 40 hour work weeks, or more vacation, he can be beaten out in the market by employer B which mandates longer hours and produces more per time period. Employees might prefer A over B, but they have so little bargaining power that this will not stop B. If the same requirements are imposed on all employers, then the country will be out-competed by others. 2. Conservatives criticize any such proposal with an argument like this: "You should be free to use your property as you wish, including by having people work as long as you can get them to agree to. And everything is already owned, so the only way to provide more for one person is to take away from another, and it's wrong to take money or other values from people who have earned them, to give to others who have not earned them." Regardless of the merits of the argument, it is effective with the public, and politicians use it effectively to protect the owners. This can never change unless someone can present a contrary view that can be stated in equally pithy sound-bites and which is equally convincing for large numbers of voters (in democratic countries, basically W. Europe and parts of S. America) or unless a large enough segment commit to a revolution (in the rest of the countries which are not democratic).

fidotron 13y ago

This looks like a lot of words to disguise the fact it's neo-luddism. With technological progress worker roles are eliminated, but the idea is that the market has demand for new currently non-existent things and as the progress enables those things to come into existence creating new jobs as it goes. The much larger problem is people are genuinely getting conditioned to receiving a lot for nothing, and this has distorted the market in terms of what activities are most highly rewarded. For example, easy credit means selling to people that don't have the money (or the means) is actually very lucrative, so you get a lot of otherwise smart people engaged in activities to extract money from those with easy credit as opposed to applying their talents to contributing more positively to the system as a whole.

chc 13y ago
You are making three claims here: 1) That technology replaces jobs. 2) That there is a vast untapped well of jobs that will be created as Point 1 progresses. 3) That the number of jobs in Point 2 is greater the number of jobs in Point 1. Disagreeing with Points 2 or 3 doesn't make someone a neo-Luddite. Those claims are more about the economy than about technology. I haven't seen any reason to accept them as true. Obviously some new jobs will open up, but the idea that there is a sufficient pool of jobs that are worth a comfortable wage isn't in evidence as far as I can tell.
jal278 13y ago
> With technological progress worker roles are eliminated, but the idea is that the market has demand for new currently non-existent things and as the progress enables those things to come into existence creating new jobs as it goes. The author is arguing that this isn't always the case. You can't take it as an axiom that the market will always have need for employing everyone. For example, as automation becomes more sophisticated, the intelligence needed to use or modulate that automation may increase. As that base requirement rises, more people may become structurally unemployable. In the limit, if there is little that humans can do better than computers, there is little need to employ many humans.
- handzhiev 13y ago

Theodores 13y ago

Our economies also have this tendency to siphon off surplus and spend it on expensive military projects such as wars. There is the general year in year out expenditure on new military toys, keeping the nuclear 'deterrent' up to date and keeping those boys polishing their boots. We don't get a proper tax breakdown on this expenditure so I would only be guessing as to how much is really spent. On top of this regular expenditure are the billions that have been spent bombing Afghanistan and Iraq to pieces. We have been saddled with debt to pay for that and it won't be the politicians that will be personally paying that off. Although a lot of people don't wish to see it that way, war is a racket. Nobody would bother unless there was money to be made. The waste goes far beyond the lives lost and the taxes diverted, there is also a real loss of valuable materials and energy resources. It is all an incredible waste yet we are always told that 'defence' is good for jobs. Given the default option for siphoning off the 'fruits of capitalist surplus' is more and more bombs and weapons, that is kind of what we all work for in our variously inane jobs. Isn't this a fantastic situation?

mahyarm 13y ago
Military expenditures are about %4.2 [1] of GDP, compared lets say the financial sector which has increased to %8.4 from it's under %3 level in the 1950s[2]. Or the healthcare sector, which consumes 17.4% of GDP in the USA[3]. Compared to the typical average of ~%11 for countries with socialized medicine. Most of the US tax expenditure goes towards social security and medicare. But your talking about a governmental system that can print it's own currency and is the reserve currency of the world, so even that is a bit wonky to think about. If the USA fixed it's regulatory health care mess, broke the artificial supply constraints on doctors, made medical devices not have %1000+ profit margins and socialized their healthcare, they would save more GDP than liquidating the US military. Shrinking the financial sector back to its 1950's % of GDP would also pay for the military. Our relatively small software industry is under %2 in 2007.[4] 1. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_Stat... 4. http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-GDP-is-the-US-software-industry http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-GDP-is-the-US-softwa...

skittles 13y ago

A free-market society would never average a 15 hour work week unless there's no incentive to pay for the work anymore. This could happen if we find a limitless energy source and real artificial intelligence. As long as someone is willing to pay for hours of work, people will be willing to work more than 15 hours a week to get ahead.

semanticist 13y ago
Why? No, seriously, if I can work 15 hours a week and live comfortably, why is there an automatic assumption that I'd need to work more just because other people are prepared to do that? What does 'get ahead' even mean, in that context? There's so many social and cultural assumptions bound up in your statement that it's nearly meaningless for anyone who isn't you.
- habosa 13y ago
  People don't just want to do well, they want to do better than those around them. it's natural to many people (maybe not to you, but to many). I read this quote from a wall street executive in an article recently posted on HN: " “It's not just enough to fly in first class; I have to know my friends are flying in coach." So unless nobody is selling first class tickets, people will work harder to afford them. And in order for the market to work, the seller of tickets will raise the price of first class until only ~10% of flying passengers can afford it.
  - semanticist 13y ago
    I don't think your Wall Street exec is expressing a common viewpoint. In fact, I think he's probably a sociopath, and if we can architecture a society which is actively hostile to those kind of attitudes I think it could only be a good thing.

danford 13y ago

Great article. One of the things that many people have an aversion to when it comes to this kind of thing is the "socialist" aspect of it. We all agree that it's great, but is it for everybody? I totally see where libertarians come from. They want A LOT of freedom. But why can't we have it both ways? One of the reasons socialism is hard to maintain is because of how spread out things can be, I think we can all agree that with socialism you inevitably have to force people to do certain things so that society can work (for example, live in a certain place), and this is much easier to do in a small location, but what's stopping us from having two sets of laws governing two areas of land? You can fit everyone in the US into an area the size of Jacksonville Fl., so why not just establish "tech-metros" which are open to anyone and provide basic necessities in a socialized fashion, and use automation and digitalization to provide goods and services, while designating certain swaths of land out side these places as under a different set of laws that are more libertarian in nature? I believe ~60% of people would flock to the "tech-metros" while the remaining portion would attempt life in a more privatized fashion out side of them. With a more centralized "sub-government" in charge of these small areas, and with it being easy to come and go as you please, it should be easier to take care of the masses that want to be taken care of and let the masses who don't want to be taken care of take care of themselves. Now that's just a couple paragraphs on a very radical idea, so there are a lot of details being left out, but imho this idea provides the most happiness along with the least destruction.

terranstyler 13y ago

There is a big fallacy in the article: Namely, that the amount of work that can be done has an upper bound. In fact, the amount of work that can be be done is infinite and with higher productivity other things are done (= can be done economically) than before, for example: Cleaning the streets, painting your house white, keeping your nearby river clean, build tanks & guns, maintaining bureaucracy, helping people you don't know (welfare state). These things are all non-essential (yeah yeah I know but still ...), yet are only done now because only recently we achieved the productivity / wealth of being able to do it. If we stop doing these things we will feel wealthier because individually, we'll have more resources to fulfill our needs. We would maybe still help our neighbours or paint our house white or buy guns but we would (or not) do it because we decided it ourselves. I suppose in the future there will be other things we'll do that now seem insane: maybe even the poorest might have a swimming pool, or we commute a few thousand kilometers to work, or we each carry a wearable computer around without needing it for work (can you imagine???). But there will be work, it is as certain as death and taxes.

ctdonath 13y ago
The complementary fallacy also in the article: the amount of work required has a lower bound of zero. Survival isn't free. We consume (destroy) just to maintain a lowest-common-denominator status quo. The Red Queen was right: we need to run (work) hard just to keep up with staying where we are (98 degrees F). To keep two people at that state of basic survival while one does nothing to produce whatever's needed to maintain their fair share, the other has to work twice as hard - and without some suitable incentive, the one working will lose interest in doing so. Yes, we're in a wealthy society. We're at this level because everyone, on the whole, works hard and pitches in. If a growing subset decide to just bask in the luxury, it's all going to come crashing down. As tax season approaches, I'm reminded of how much is taken from me - making it hard to do what I consider essential for my family, and making me reconsider my role in society; take enough from me, and I can go "off grid" pretty fast. Remember the goose who laid golden eggs.

raldi 13y ago

This article is predicated on the idea that, because we're more efficient today than 1930, we should be able to work less and live the same lifestyle. Well, in fact, we can. But you can't ignore those last three words: you have to live the same lifestyle as a typical 1930s person. * No internet. * No TV. * No air conditioning. * No cell phone. * No car. * Bunk beds for your kids. * One bathroom for the whole house. * No flying, anywhere, ever. * No fancy restaurants. * No organic groceries. The reason we're still working 1930 hours in 2014 is that we prefer it -- that is, we prefer the rich lifestyle those hours provide us.

angersock 13y ago
What? That's quite silly. On the internet/TV for example, you are failing to take into account the spread of tech and efficiency. We can have factories produce TVs automatically, and internet infrastructure doesn't require a huge number of people to keep it running--and most of them, I wager, would be happy to keep doing what they're doing, because it's fun. As for fancy restaurants or organic groceries...that's just a function of cooking something well and having something to cook. If you're not working all the time, you are more likely to be able to help in your community garden. I'm sorry, but your assertion isn't borne out by thought.
- bqe 13y ago
  Internet infrastructure actually does require a somewhat large number of people and it is quite fragile. I never would have though a fiber cut (which seems to happen almost weekly) would have such a large impact, but it does. I figured BGP would reroute around that and to some extent it does, but there's still a lot of manual route handling.
- raldi 13y ago
  I think you misinterpreted my comment as if it were about what "we" as a society could do, but I meant it as a comment about what any of us as an individual could do.
  - angersock 13y ago

netcan 13y ago

If you're feeling unbiased enough to try and ignore what certain words mean to use today, you may want to ready Oscar Wilde's take on these things from a 19th century point of view. If the words "Socialist" or "Marxist" mean something much more livid to you than " Romanticism" or "Postmodernism," you are not allowed to read the linked article^ http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/ http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-m... ^I was considering banning Americans from reading this article. I'm allowing it for now, but please behave.

mcguire 13y ago
Speaking as an American, I cannot see anything much more livid than "Romanticism", except "Postmodernism".
- netcan 13y ago
  OK. You have permission to read Oscar Wilde.

habosa 13y ago

The discussion here (http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber http://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gra...) which is linked from the original post is, imo, more interesting and thought provoking. I think most people can immediately identify with the idea of "working" 40 hours while really only doing 15 hours of hard work and 25 hours of paper pushing and procrastinating. Maybe not in your current job but almost certainly in some job you once held. I think this is a product of work culture. There are, at almost every halfway useful company, a number of truly busy people. These people have 40 hours of things to do every week, or at least need 40 hours to properly instruct their subordinates. However it is often the case that they only really need 15h of hard work from each subordinate. The issue is that it's not culturally acceptable to say to your boss "I just did all you need from me this week in a few hours, I'm going to the beach now". So such a worker faces the choice of either speaking up and asking for more work, or dragging out the minimal work they have to do until it takes an "acceptable" amount of time. Since time is our most valuable asset the culture of a company is considered fair when people are giving relatively equal time sacrifices to the task at hand. I know I have been lucky enough to have a manager that was not offended if I finished all of my work early and left, but 99% of people never have that luxury. It's psychological, most people don't want others to get off easy.

stcredzero 13y ago
I've heard about almost this exact situation. A brilliant developer I knew when I worked for a Smalltalk vendor (one who made a seminal contribution to his programming community that went on to influence almost every other programming community) was working as a contractor for a telecom. He found that he could get all of his assignments for the week done in 1 or 2 days. Basically, his manager told him to do more work each week, so that the suffering would be distributed evenly.
digikata 13y ago
It's something of an efficiency fallacy that keeping all resources (people and/or machines, etc) 100% occupied is the best way to get highest system productivity. Unfortunately, the assumption is baked-in to a lot of our work culture. Regarding people, good reading in this concept is Goldratt's, "The Goal"[1]. There are more technical approaches of the concept. But, the novel is great in terms of getting a visceral feel of why there are busy resources, but at the same time you need idle resources within the same pipeline for good system performance. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel)

stcredzero 13y ago

I left a job where I was basically paid to be the other guy with a heartbeat who knows Smalltalk. I did nothing but browse all day, and it was soul crushing. (Also responsible for a significant chunk of my HN karma.) http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-06-02/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-06-02/