Comment by lloeki | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lloeki | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> If you want to create a world where there's no bullshit jobs at all then you'd be creating a world where millions are unemployed.

With such absolutes we're entering wild hypothetical territories.

An alternative viewpoint would be that no bullshit job => everyone does a humane job with a purpose. Wouldn't that be nicer than breaking one's body or mind for a soulless job, artificially so just to get money to put food on the table? I think we're fairly happy to not have to hunt for food and plant crops.

A second alternative would be that millions (90% so... billions? all?) being "unemployed" would mean (as you seem to imply) they wouldn't get paid (or they would through some flat social revenue) and money would rapidly cease to have any meaning as we understand it.

Both cases converge to a post-scarcity economy[0], one popular example of which is the Star Trek economy[1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics

Of course it's nicer to give everyone a humane job. It's not about what's nicer. It's about reality. There's simply not enough jobs to go around if there are no bullshit jobs. Your statement here doesn't make sense to me. Yeah it's better but what does better have to do with the realistic consequence? Nothing.

Very little jobs for people with sub 80 IQ which makes up a significant portion of the population. If any of these people hold jobs it's most likely bullshit.

If millions are unemployed that doesn't mean they won't get paid. But if they didn't it doesn't mean money has no meaning. I didn't mention the consequences of that. You did.

All I said here is that if we get rid of all bullshit jobs. Millions will be unemployed. What that means is up to you decide, I simply stated the immediate realistic consequence of no bullshit jobs.

Lots of assertions without evidence. We can organize work how ever we want to if we have the political will. Your entire line of argument reads like something from a lunchroom chat in high school.

And You're fucking rude. What the hell is up with that Wild u turn there into hostility. You need to fucking tone your shit down.

This is causal conversation not a scientifically rigorous paper making bold claims. That comparison with highschool was Totally uncalled for. Next time either ask nicely for evidence or if you want to be rude please do so somewhere else.

For now we are done. This conversation is over.

Please don't post aggressively or in the flamewar style to HN, no matter how bad another comment is or you feel it is. It only makes everything worse.

Edit: you've been doing this so frequently in other threads (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39361150) that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Attacking another user isn't allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that post like this, so please don't. Your comment would be fine without the last sentence (and arguably the first one as well).

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com