Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

I suspect the real problem is the evaporation of superficial jobs. We have become a nation devoted to our wants, but when things look bad people quickly cut back on such things. A tiny fraction of our population are "farmers" but with the over abundance of food produced and the only way to make money is to either suck on the governments subsidies or create specialty locally grown, free range, Organic etc goods.

I think only long term way to get out of chronic high levels of unemployment is to either accept we are going to live in a welfare state, or remove the minimum wage.

View on HN

Or use advances in technology to find jobs, probably mostly in the way of finding ways to use unskilled people effectively. Theres no doubt their is an endless amount of work out there that could be done to make life better, it's just that it's probably uneconomical to undertake currently.

Maybe the answer is part welfare state, except that the government assign positions to people collecting welfare.

I don't think technology helps the unskilled all that much. Consider the knowledge it takes to use a shovel vs. a backhoe.

It doesn't, but it gives new areas which need more manpower for advancement. Sure these areas would also like skilled workers, but it could become viable if government allowed it to be in essentially a work for welfare program, so you still hav the skilled rich supporting the poorer unskilled just they are now being put to work to the best of their abilities.

what do you think of basic income?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

We have so many people today who needs aren't being met and still aren't contributing. What about Basic Income motivates people to work when all their needs are met by doing nothing?

This question even ignores logistical difficulties like what the definition of a wage "to meet all their needs" would be, or where the money to fund such a program would come from.

> We have so many people today who needs aren't being met and still aren't contributing.

can you clarify this? their needs aren't met because they have no ability to contribute to the labor market..

I think it's a reasonable idea if set low enough.

Over time remove Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment assistance etc and set all taxes at a flat rate then give everyone say ~700 to 1000$ per month inflation adjusted + heath care. The problem is we live in a democracy so that number can and will be fucked with. Also, handling money for young children to avoid "professional welfare mothers".

PS: The odd things the actual numbers don't change much from the current system, but the advantage is it removes perverse incentives. There is no threshold where earning more money is taxed at insane levels (sometimes over 100%) as public assistance is removed.

Maybe in the future, but it sure seems like a disincentive to working. I would prefer we implement a flat-rate tax on income filed as individuals and not as a family. Something like a 20/20 (first 20k exempt then 20% of the rest). I am not sure about the actual numbers (sounds like a big data crunch through the IRS income reporting would be good).

Regardless of policy, it is very important to get as many people in the mode "I am paying for this government" so that fiscal responsibility is desired by most as opposed to a handout mentality.

> Maybe in the future,

what are the criteria for this future?

I guess when robots get too good at replacing humans (reasoning, mobile, perform skilled work).

so why are people unemployed now? isn't it, as Retric put it, that superficial jobs are being automated?

do you think all those unemployed now are just lazy?

wow, talk about interpreting what I said way out of context and intent......

No, I don't think unemployed people are all lazy. Where the heck did I even come close to saying that? I believe the "basic income" as described in your link is wrong for right now and has more of a basis in some future.

People are unemployed because we are in an economic downturn and people are not spending and capital has also dried up. Companies are going without more than automating. This isn't the consequence of some tech revolution, it is the consequence of poor decision making on Wall Street and in Government.

What's a 'superficial job'?

Jobs that don't create long term value AND don't serve a basic human need. We need X farmers, but we have X + Y actual farmers the Y is are optional jobs that have limited long term economic value.

Those sorts of jobs are not evaporating, those are most of the jobs.

Must all jobs create long term value and serve a basic human need?

I guess pretty much every job would serve a basic human need (to be employed) to someone who needs to be employed in order to make ends meet.

I guess what I'm trying to get at it is that your post read like someone trying to apply what they thought the world should be like and not how it actually is.

For example, if we have an excess of farmers that would be cleared up in the market as those not making enough income to continue being farmers would pack up and leave the occupation or try to get loans to maintain their employment long enough to weather the current conditions. The only time I see problems in employment is when an entity steps in to maintain a job when the market is already dismissing it.

Must all jobs create long term value and serve a basic human need? The negation of ((not A) and (not B)) aka !((!A) and (!B)) = A or B.

A) Jobs which meet a basic human need are more stable than jobs that fill a want. They also come back vary quickly vs jobs that fill wants.

B) Jobs that invest in the future are somewhat more stable than jobs that fill wants and they come back quickly as the economy improves.

C) Jobs that fill wants are the least stable because people need to feel that their future is very secure before they spend much in this category.

Government spending to prop up A or B can be cost effective, but to prop up C tends to be extremely costly. In some ways money is less useful than confidence. Consider the state of mind someone needs to be in to spend a weekend at a spa, get married in Hawaii, or buy an Accura vs. a Honda.

I was expressly commenting on farm subsidies. There is an idea that giving welfare to people is worse than giving it to industries however from an economic standpoint there is little difference when the output of said job does not create long term value.

people working below minimum wage are "employed" in name only.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com