3 ms·

For someone who's a techno-libertarian, like myself, it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument. The most straightf

by drcode 12y ago

For someone who's a techno-libertarian, like myself, it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument. The most straightforward response is "It will PROBABLY turn out OK, new jobs will probably show up", but that just isn't a very satisfying retort, even if it's the truth.

calibraxis 12y ago
Perhaps you could tell them that the question betrays a deep misconception. We can use computers to decrease and deskill employment. Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. (It's like energy research. Want nukes, or sustainable or clean energy? That's up to society to decide.) Of course, passive people who stick to the status quo means we get bad outcomes.
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  > Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. Right. However, GP may have alluded to the question of whether such an outcome is compatible with libertarianism. Does that question betray a deep misconception?
nhaehnle 12y ago
It's the kind of thing where you have to say "I observe that I am confused" and have to re-examine your premises, your objectives, and the conclusions you derive from them. Maybe being techno-libertarian shouldn't be (a strong) part of your identity because it does not make a very good end in itself.
x1798DE 12y ago
Where the "jobs" are going seems like the wrong question to me, honestly. I'm fine with not having a "job" as long as I have access to wealth - jobs are a cost we bear in order o generate wealth. The fact that we no longer have to pay that cost, writ large, seems like a good thing to me, overall. There are of course a lot of questions about how the wealth will be distributed and whether or not we're obsoleting ourselves, but I think I'd rather try to carve out a niche for myself in a world where the problem is that we create more wealth than ever with minimal input from humans than live in a world where human labor is a dire necessity.
Zigurd 12y ago
It isn't the truth. The truth is there are very few places new jobs are coming from and many places they are being destroyed. Can you articulate a markets-as-natural-force argument that actually works? If not, it's time to question the viability of Libertarianism. Libertarianism is wishful thinking. Or it's a fake and cynical beard for corporatism and oligarchy. If you want an economic outcome you have to design an economy that delivers that outcome. If you fail to do that you leave the field open for oligarchs.
- drcode 12y ago
  > The truth is there are very few places new jobs are coming from and many places they are being destroyed. Well, given that almost all measures show that the unemployment rate has gone down in the last 5 years, it means exactly the opposite of what you say: More new jobs are appearing than are being destroyed. (other time frames lead to other conclusions of course) > If you want an economic outcome you have to design an economy that delivers that outcome. That is pretty much a textbook example of the "wishful thinking" you accuse me of. You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome?
  - nhaehnle 12y ago
    5 years is not a good time horizon for unemployment rate comparison, because that time window is during the Great Recession/Lesser Depression, which surely dominates any longer term (and therefore slower) effects of technology. > You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome? Not at a detailed level, but stuff like tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation are not random accidents.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    If by a limp recovery after an ibank-created crisis, then yeah. Participation rate down, massive increases in SSD, massive growth in income disparity, no change to these trends in sight. It's denial in the form of statistics. > "You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome?" Yes. Start with these design changes: raising the minimum wage and cutting the work-week.
twobits 12y ago
'it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument' I don't think people really care about having a job. They care about being able to put bread on the table. (For various degrees of "bread", as "wants" can be psychologically infinite.) So, long term, the answer will be "yes, sure. And that's a good thing. You'll have what you have now, with no need to work." Going from here to there, is very likely to be bumpy, though. And finally, "not working" doesn't mean "not doing anything", as many people assume.
humanrebar 12y ago
> it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument. The right response is, "What's the alternative (or solution)?" You could also point out that many of the problems we have now could be described as inefficiencies ultimately caused by not giving individuals enough choices and/or freedom or by subsidizing the wrong things (overpriced housing, discounted degrees in metaphysical therapy, employer-provided healthcare, etc.). I could be missing something but most of the solutions I hear about involve more restrictions on employment or more targeted subsidies. I'm not convinced that we won't just be a different kind of wrong in another generation.

by drcode 12y ago

calibraxis 12y ago

Perhaps you could tell them that the question betrays a deep misconception. We can use computers to decrease and deskill employment. Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. (It's like energy research. Want nukes, or sustainable or clean energy? That's up to society to decide.) Of course, passive people who stick to the status quo means we get bad outcomes.

nhaehnle 12y ago
> Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. Right. However, GP may have alluded to the question of whether such an outcome is compatible with libertarianism. Does that question betray a deep misconception?

nhaehnle 12y ago

It's the kind of thing where you have to say "I observe that I am confused" and have to re-examine your premises, your objectives, and the conclusions you derive from them. Maybe being techno-libertarian shouldn't be (a strong) part of your identity because it does not make a very good end in itself.

x1798DE 12y ago

Where the "jobs" are going seems like the wrong question to me, honestly. I'm fine with not having a "job" as long as I have access to wealth - jobs are a cost we bear in order o generate wealth. The fact that we no longer have to pay that cost, writ large, seems like a good thing to me, overall. There are of course a lot of questions about how the wealth will be distributed and whether or not we're obsoleting ourselves, but I think I'd rather try to carve out a niche for myself in a world where the problem is that we create more wealth than ever with minimal input from humans than live in a world where human labor is a dire necessity.

Zigurd 12y ago

It isn't the truth. The truth is there are very few places new jobs are coming from and many places they are being destroyed. Can you articulate a markets-as-natural-force argument that actually works? If not, it's time to question the viability of Libertarianism. Libertarianism is wishful thinking. Or it's a fake and cynical beard for corporatism and oligarchy. If you want an economic outcome you have to design an economy that delivers that outcome. If you fail to do that you leave the field open for oligarchs.

drcode 12y ago
> The truth is there are very few places new jobs are coming from and many places they are being destroyed. Well, given that almost all measures show that the unemployment rate has gone down in the last 5 years, it means exactly the opposite of what you say: More new jobs are appearing than are being destroyed. (other time frames lead to other conclusions of course) > If you want an economic outcome you have to design an economy that delivers that outcome. That is pretty much a textbook example of the "wishful thinking" you accuse me of. You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome?
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  5 years is not a good time horizon for unemployment rate comparison, because that time window is during the Great Recession/Lesser Depression, which surely dominates any longer term (and therefore slower) effects of technology. > You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome? Not at a detailed level, but stuff like tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation are not random accidents.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  If by a limp recovery after an ibank-created crisis, then yeah. Participation rate down, massive increases in SSD, massive growth in income disparity, no change to these trends in sight. It's denial in the form of statistics. > "You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome?" Yes. Start with these design changes: raising the minimum wage and cutting the work-week.

twobits 12y ago

'it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument' I don't think people really care about having a job. They care about being able to put bread on the table. (For various degrees of "bread", as "wants" can be psychologically infinite.) So, long term, the answer will be "yes, sure. And that's a good thing. You'll have what you have now, with no need to work." Going from here to there, is very likely to be bumpy, though. And finally, "not working" doesn't mean "not doing anything", as many people assume.

humanrebar 12y ago

> it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument. The right response is, "What's the alternative (or solution)?" You could also point out that many of the problems we have now could be described as inefficiencies ultimately caused by not giving individuals enough choices and/or freedom or by subsidizing the wrong things (overpriced housing, discounted degrees in metaphysical therapy, employer-provided healthcare, etc.). I could be missing something but most of the solutions I hear about involve more restrictions on employment or more targeted subsidies. I'm not convinced that we won't just be a different kind of wrong in another generation.