5 ms·

I am so sick of articles like this which make some broad moral judgement about the new tech economy. This one is even worse than most because the author doesn't

by lstyls 12y ago

I am so sick of articles like this which make some broad moral judgement about the new tech economy. This one is even worse than most because the author doesn't even attempt to give some statistical merit to his argument. Instead he takes the lazy route of quoting some quasi-anecdotal BS about how all the young millennials are making their way to SV to develop the next big app as if they're the Oakies of the dustbowl heading west to pick oranges. The fact is, tech has fundamentally restructured the labor market. Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out. It is not good or evil. What will really determine whether we win out as a society will be how we invest in things like education and infrastructure. Arguments that attempt to write off tech full cloth as evil are useless, as are the pollyanas who think tech will solve everything.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
> Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out. If he's right about the automation part (I think he is), and if we're as stupid as we were in the 1930s, then the class of people who do well is likely to be quite smaller than the class of people who lose out big time. Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. The only awful thing about that is the loss of revenue. And the stigmatization of the unemployed. With technology that destroys more jobs than it creates, we don't have many solutions. We could generalise the 4 days work-week. Then 3 days… Or we could try unconditional basic income. Both, maybe? Or, we can wait until we're all deep in the poo, such that we get an increasing number of violent uprisings, leading to revolutions or fascism. Again.
- lstyls 12y ago
  > Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. Right. Increasing efficiency is a double edged sword, and we will have to walk a very fine line if we want to make this ongoing tech revolution work for the greater good.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  I wish more people saw this the way that you do. You're right. Destroying "work", that is no longer needed, benefits society. It's a widespread loss of income that causes everything to go to hell. The two don't need to be correlated.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Or as someone wrote on HN once, and which is also probably my favourite quote from here, "No job is the goal. No money is the problem.". EDIT: 'nostromo @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    I once searched for a catchy phrase to capture this. Something that could catch on even in a time where politician supposedly "fight unemployment". Something like "Systematic Annihilation of Unwanted Work".
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>Arguments that attempt to write off tech full cloth as evil are useless, as are the pollyanas who think tech will solve everything. As is techno-determinism, in which we pretend that technology determines the structure of society rather than society choosing what sorts of technologies it builds.
- llamataboot 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure there is a feedback loop here - not one way causation in either direction.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Like 'llamataboot I think that ultimately it's a feedback loop, but come to think of it, it's hard to deny how technology changes society. Look at agriculture, or printing press. Moreover, society itself doesn't really control itself, it's just a big group of agents with different goals and ideas, that all follow incentive structures. It seems much easier for a new technology to change the society than for the society to decide "what sorts of technologies it builds".
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Of course it's a feedback loop. But, just as truly, the design and incentive control we exercise over institutions is a "social technology" that can radically alter which way history goes. Society does decide what sorts of technologies it builds. That's why we're years behind on green energy, for instance: we could have been funding all research proposals regarding thorium reactors or, more speculatively, nuclear fusion decades ago. Society chose to stick with fossil fuels. Likewise, we could have built modern networked operating systems with capability security from the ground up -- but we chose, collectively, to stick with a weaker security model that bore more resemblance to what came before it.
gress 12y ago
Actually, if it reduces the living standard and opportunities of the majority of people, that's pretty much the definition of 'evil'. We don't know if that's the actual outcome yet, but we should be aware of the possibility and make choices to try to avoid it.
- lstyls 12y ago
  Your definition of 'evil' totally removes intent. It can be unacceptable, unfortunate, or something else. But 'evil' implies unmitigated badness. This is not a black and white issue. Besides, you're begging the question. The jury is still out on whether or not overall quality of life will in fact decrease. Historical trends strongly suggest otherwise. Let me be clear, I'm not saying everything will be dandy. I just don't know. And you don't either.
  - gress 12y ago
    Your second paragraph makes it seem as though you didn't read my comment. If you had, it seems unlikely that you would have condescendingly said "Let me be clear" before repeating a point I had already made. Otherwise, why did you do that? But I accept that there is some grayness around the idea of intent. I think that that gets resolved with the concept of responsibility. Once the possibility that our actions could be causing harm is raised, we have the responsibility to be aware of this and avoid it if we can, otherwise we are just as culpable as someone who 'intended' harm. Not taking the possibility seriously makes us culpable if harm occurs.
raincom 12y ago
You need to add the time dimension to your statement "Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out". The timeframe is not a couple of years, which are needed to transfrom one class of labor into another class of labor. This transformation ( the class of losers becoming the class of winners) takes more than three generations. Imagine the social consequences of this. I am not a Luddite. The government policy is run by the super winners, whose interest is not so much about the losers, except by getting votes from the losers by throwing some breadcrumbs.
pm24601 12y ago
And what exactly do you think the now underemployed is going to do with their time? Before getting too dismissive of the article: ask what happens when there are large numbers of underemployeed young men and women with no money, no jobs, no prospects. They don't just stay at home.

by lstyls 12y ago

loup-vaillant 12y ago

> Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out. If he's right about the automation part (I think he is), and if we're as stupid as we were in the 1930s, then the class of people who do well is likely to be quite smaller than the class of people who lose out big time. Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. The only awful thing about that is the loss of revenue. And the stigmatization of the unemployed. With technology that destroys more jobs than it creates, we don't have many solutions. We could generalise the 4 days work-week. Then 3 days… Or we could try unconditional basic income. Both, maybe? Or, we can wait until we're all deep in the poo, such that we get an increasing number of violent uprisings, leading to revolutions or fascism. Again.

lstyls 12y ago
> Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. Right. Increasing efficiency is a double edged sword, and we will have to walk a very fine line if we want to make this ongoing tech revolution work for the greater good.
michaelochurch 12y ago
I wish more people saw this the way that you do. You're right. Destroying "work", that is no longer needed, benefits society. It's a widespread loss of income that causes everything to go to hell. The two don't need to be correlated.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Or as someone wrote on HN once, and which is also probably my favourite quote from here, "No job is the goal. No money is the problem.". EDIT: 'nostromo @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  I once searched for a catchy phrase to capture this. Something that could catch on even in a time where politician supposedly "fight unemployment". Something like "Systematic Annihilation of Unwanted Work".

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>Arguments that attempt to write off tech full cloth as evil are useless, as are the pollyanas who think tech will solve everything. As is techno-determinism, in which we pretend that technology determines the structure of society rather than society choosing what sorts of technologies it builds.

llamataboot 12y ago
I'm pretty sure there is a feedback loop here - not one way causation in either direction.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Like 'llamataboot I think that ultimately it's a feedback loop, but come to think of it, it's hard to deny how technology changes society. Look at agriculture, or printing press. Moreover, society itself doesn't really control itself, it's just a big group of agents with different goals and ideas, that all follow incentive structures. It seems much easier for a new technology to change the society than for the society to decide "what sorts of technologies it builds".
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Of course it's a feedback loop. But, just as truly, the design and incentive control we exercise over institutions is a "social technology" that can radically alter which way history goes. Society does decide what sorts of technologies it builds. That's why we're years behind on green energy, for instance: we could have been funding all research proposals regarding thorium reactors or, more speculatively, nuclear fusion decades ago. Society chose to stick with fossil fuels. Likewise, we could have built modern networked operating systems with capability security from the ground up -- but we chose, collectively, to stick with a weaker security model that bore more resemblance to what came before it.

gress 12y ago

Actually, if it reduces the living standard and opportunities of the majority of people, that's pretty much the definition of 'evil'. We don't know if that's the actual outcome yet, but we should be aware of the possibility and make choices to try to avoid it.

lstyls 12y ago
Your definition of 'evil' totally removes intent. It can be unacceptable, unfortunate, or something else. But 'evil' implies unmitigated badness. This is not a black and white issue. Besides, you're begging the question. The jury is still out on whether or not overall quality of life will in fact decrease. Historical trends strongly suggest otherwise. Let me be clear, I'm not saying everything will be dandy. I just don't know. And you don't either.
- gress 12y ago
  Your second paragraph makes it seem as though you didn't read my comment. If you had, it seems unlikely that you would have condescendingly said "Let me be clear" before repeating a point I had already made. Otherwise, why did you do that? But I accept that there is some grayness around the idea of intent. I think that that gets resolved with the concept of responsibility. Once the possibility that our actions could be causing harm is raised, we have the responsibility to be aware of this and avoid it if we can, otherwise we are just as culpable as someone who 'intended' harm. Not taking the possibility seriously makes us culpable if harm occurs.

raincom 12y ago

You need to add the time dimension to your statement "Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out". The timeframe is not a couple of years, which are needed to transfrom one class of labor into another class of labor. This transformation ( the class of losers becoming the class of winners) takes more than three generations. Imagine the social consequences of this. I am not a Luddite. The government policy is run by the super winners, whose interest is not so much about the losers, except by getting votes from the losers by throwing some breadcrumbs.

pm24601 12y ago

And what exactly do you think the now underemployed is going to do with their time? Before getting too dismissive of the article: ask what happens when there are large numbers of underemployeed young men and women with no money, no jobs, no prospects. They don't just stay at home.