3 ms·

The crux: "It seems to me that technology will soon destroy jobs faster than it creates them, if it hasn’t started to already. Which is a good thing! Most of th

by klunger 12y ago

The crux: "It seems to me that technology will soon destroy jobs faster than it creates them, if it hasn’t started to already. Which is a good thing! Most of the jobs it destroys are bad, and most of the ones it creates are good. Net human happiness should be vastly increased, not decreased, by this process — but, unfortunately, capitalism doesn’t work that way." Instead of trying to lower costs for big companies by creating software that replaces people, we should strive to create something of value that can also employ people in meaningful numbers. Don't know what exactly, but that is the shape of it.

llamataboot 12y ago
OR embrace the structural changes and move towards a world in which fulfillment of basic needs (food/shelter/medical care) aren't tied to whether or not one has a job. All this extra value floating around should take care of that...
- muuh-gnu 12y ago
  > All this extra value floating around All this extra value didnt fall from the sky, but has been produced by somebody elses labor. If you dont want to work to trade the products of your labor for the products of his labor, why should he share with you?
  - llamataboot 12y ago
    It's not really a matter of /wanting/ to work, it's structural disconnection from labor opportunities. As for why a basic income makes sense in an otherwise free-er market, there's plenty of both pragmatic and normative arguments floating around hacker news and the internet.
    - muuh-gnu 12y ago
      > As for why a basic income makes sense Whether it makes sense for you or not, the discussion around this basic income nonsense regularly neglects the fact that in order for you to get money for not working, it has to be forcibly taken from somebody who actually did work and refuses to voluntarily share with people who dont work. Forced sharing (aka communism) is outright theft, and working people will fight you to stop you from taking the products of their labor. > it's structural disconnection from labor opportunities. Being "structurally disconnected" doesnt entitle you to forcibly take stuff from people who are not structurally disconnected. You can of course try, but then you got a war and people will fight you until you stop trying to take their stuff.
vidarh 12y ago
Basically, that quote was the foundation of Marx' argument for why he saw capitalism as doomed to eventual failure. People tend to think that Marx argued for the overthrow of capitalism because it is/was in his eyes morally "bad" or "evil", but that's not really the case. Marx argued that capitalism was better than any previous system, and - despite failings - vitally necessary to bring the world to a point where production would for the first time in history make it possible to meet the basic needs of everyone (without which, he insisted, a socialist revolution would be doomed to failure: in such a situation, redistribution would just make want common, and cause the old class struggle to re-assert itself - like it did in the Soviet Union etc. with the party installing itself as a new upper class). But he expected capitalism to continue to push production efficiency to the point where it would overproduce and under-employ, and that this would eventually trigger socialist revolutions. > Instead of trying to lower costs for big companies by creating software that replaces people, we should strive to create something of value that can also employ people in meaningful numbers. Don't know what exactly, but that is the shape of it. Why? If we can reduce or remove the need for people to work, why should we not?
- muuh-gnu 12y ago
  We can not remove the need to work, because there will always be a need to eat, and to be able to eat, you need to work because nobody will feed you voluntarily. If somebody else has to work so you can eat without working, thats theft and your victims will try to kill you to stop you taking the products of their labor.
  - minikites 12y ago
    What if you could eat without any person having to work?
    - muuh-gnu 12y ago
      There is no such possibility.
  - chongli 12y ago
muuh-gnu 12y ago
> we should strive Who is "we"? There is no "we". Capitalism exists because different people have conflicting desires and unequal abilities. Capitalism is just another word for natural selection. Any attempts to get rid of capitalism as the "default" state of interhuman relations, will have to be accompanied by massive amounts of force, because you cant fight human nature without force. And even then, the only people willing to invest force and suffering to end the natural state of things are people who would personally profit from ending it, otherwise they would have no motivation to lift a finger, let alone lose one fighting to end capitalism, which then makes the attempt to violently end capitalism just another, more brutish form of natural selection. You can not somehow "out-smart" natural selection and evolution and make people live happily together ever after without anybody exploiting anybody else. Inequality is a fact of life. By forcibly ending capitalism, the most humane form of natural selection to date, you can merely make the endeavour more bloody again.
- nirnira 12y ago
  Sorry, didn't you hear? Internet discussions about economic inequality are logic-free zones. Please keep your clear reasoning and pragmatic realism to yourself.
- panarky 12y ago
  So you're saying that capitalism is some kind of natural state of being, the basic expression of human nature? Capitalism with large, deep, anonymous markets only arose along with powerful nation-states with a monopoly on force. The default condition is probably what existed before nation-states -- tribalism, feudalism, serfdom, slavery, and roaming gangs of local thugs. Humanity only rises above Hobbes' state of nature through collective action, which inevitably requires some force or coercion. Without that, life is nasty, brutish and short.
carsongross 12y ago
> Instead of trying to lower costs for big companies by creating software that replaces people... Or we could try to lower costs for people by creating software that replaces big companies (and government.) Just a thought.

by klunger 12y ago

llamataboot 12y ago

OR embrace the structural changes and move towards a world in which fulfillment of basic needs (food/shelter/medical care) aren't tied to whether or not one has a job. All this extra value floating around should take care of that...

muuh-gnu 12y ago
> All this extra value floating around All this extra value didnt fall from the sky, but has been produced by somebody elses labor. If you dont want to work to trade the products of your labor for the products of his labor, why should he share with you?
- llamataboot 12y ago
  It's not really a matter of /wanting/ to work, it's structural disconnection from labor opportunities. As for why a basic income makes sense in an otherwise free-er market, there's plenty of both pragmatic and normative arguments floating around hacker news and the internet.
  - muuh-gnu 12y ago
    > As for why a basic income makes sense Whether it makes sense for you or not, the discussion around this basic income nonsense regularly neglects the fact that in order for you to get money for not working, it has to be forcibly taken from somebody who actually did work and refuses to voluntarily share with people who dont work. Forced sharing (aka communism) is outright theft, and working people will fight you to stop you from taking the products of their labor. > it's structural disconnection from labor opportunities. Being "structurally disconnected" doesnt entitle you to forcibly take stuff from people who are not structurally disconnected. You can of course try, but then you got a war and people will fight you until you stop trying to take their stuff.

vidarh 12y ago

Basically, that quote was the foundation of Marx' argument for why he saw capitalism as doomed to eventual failure. People tend to think that Marx argued for the overthrow of capitalism because it is/was in his eyes morally "bad" or "evil", but that's not really the case. Marx argued that capitalism was better than any previous system, and - despite failings - vitally necessary to bring the world to a point where production would for the first time in history make it possible to meet the basic needs of everyone (without which, he insisted, a socialist revolution would be doomed to failure: in such a situation, redistribution would just make want common, and cause the old class struggle to re-assert itself - like it did in the Soviet Union etc. with the party installing itself as a new upper class). But he expected capitalism to continue to push production efficiency to the point where it would overproduce and under-employ, and that this would eventually trigger socialist revolutions. > Instead of trying to lower costs for big companies by creating software that replaces people, we should strive to create something of value that can also employ people in meaningful numbers. Don't know what exactly, but that is the shape of it. Why? If we can reduce or remove the need for people to work, why should we not?

muuh-gnu 12y ago
We can not remove the need to work, because there will always be a need to eat, and to be able to eat, you need to work because nobody will feed you voluntarily. If somebody else has to work so you can eat without working, thats theft and your victims will try to kill you to stop you taking the products of their labor.
- minikites 12y ago
  What if you could eat without any person having to work?
  - muuh-gnu 12y ago
    There is no such possibility.
- chongli 12y ago

muuh-gnu 12y ago

> we should strive Who is "we"? There is no "we". Capitalism exists because different people have conflicting desires and unequal abilities. Capitalism is just another word for natural selection. Any attempts to get rid of capitalism as the "default" state of interhuman relations, will have to be accompanied by massive amounts of force, because you cant fight human nature without force. And even then, the only people willing to invest force and suffering to end the natural state of things are people who would personally profit from ending it, otherwise they would have no motivation to lift a finger, let alone lose one fighting to end capitalism, which then makes the attempt to violently end capitalism just another, more brutish form of natural selection. You can not somehow "out-smart" natural selection and evolution and make people live happily together ever after without anybody exploiting anybody else. Inequality is a fact of life. By forcibly ending capitalism, the most humane form of natural selection to date, you can merely make the endeavour more bloody again.

nirnira 12y ago
Sorry, didn't you hear? Internet discussions about economic inequality are logic-free zones. Please keep your clear reasoning and pragmatic realism to yourself.
panarky 12y ago
So you're saying that capitalism is some kind of natural state of being, the basic expression of human nature? Capitalism with large, deep, anonymous markets only arose along with powerful nation-states with a monopoly on force. The default condition is probably what existed before nation-states -- tribalism, feudalism, serfdom, slavery, and roaming gangs of local thugs. Humanity only rises above Hobbes' state of nature through collective action, which inevitably requires some force or coercion. Without that, life is nasty, brutish and short.

carsongross 12y ago

> Instead of trying to lower costs for big companies by creating software that replaces people... Or we could try to lower costs for people by creating software that replaces big companies (and government.) Just a thought.