Hacker News Reader

Comment by eeky | Hacker News Reader

It doesn't destroy jobs, it obviates the ones it replaces (and sometimes creates new ones). Which is a good thing, right? It makes it so that no one has to do those jobs to receive the same productivity. Thus freeing up our time for either leisure or something else productive.

Also it should be noted that technology is a double edged sword and can also make things worse. An example: a big farming corporation decides to improve profits by using new chemicals to preserve their food longer. Of course this may seem like a productive decision on paper, but it could actually be unproductive to society as a whole if the chemical has subtle but negative side effects that take a bigger toll.

View on HN

Unfortunately a lack of jobs that people are being paid for also creates a wealth disparity. You can't buy food if you don't have a job

We need a stronger social safety net because there's just not going to be enough wealth-producing activity for humans to do that we will all be able to live on that alone.

If you're right we are headed towards a society where we are collectively resting on the backs of the robots who are there to do our most mundane chores. If the robots produce enough economic output then, assuming our society restructures itself to distribute that economic output proportionally, we should be able to arrange it so that we lift everyone out of poverty.

Or maybe the robots will decide they no longer need us and that will be that. It could go either way, really.

The problem you are talking about arises from the result of competition in the markets. If someone has a cheaper production because of better technology, then the market as a whole will use their business (as the buyer has the freedom to choose who they buy from). This is fair, consensual, and it makes sense to help society gain more value as a whole. Limiting this in any way (as many regulations unfortunately do) is a restriction of people's free choice and thus an aggressive and unethical act. But of course the negative part comes in when the person who used to work in that market has now lost their job and thus their income. Well that is like crying about the slow gazelle who got eaten by the cheetah. It's nature and unfortunately you can't artificially make everybody win, or nature would push back.

Some solutions include higher taxes to make an assured living wage. This is possible today but not if everyone keeps raising the standard of what a "living" wage is. If we could produce a guaranteed living wage, we could get rid of minimum wage and thus give people a ladder to compete in markets they otherwise wouldn't be able to get experience/train in. This would be because you could literally work for free, so the company could only see a benefit to hiring you (rather than being stymied by minimum wage).

The wealth disparity is normal, look at any statistical data like humans and you will see outliers. Thus you will see people with ideas that are a million times more productive than others. Don't worry, if someone else gains wealth and you didn't lose, it does indirectly benefit you. Don't be jealous bro.

This is a poor way to promote free market economics. Most people don't want to see a tooth and claw society where low income families are torn apart by hungry capitalists.

It is certainly true that wealth disparities may be the price paid for the benefits of a free market economy but that does not make them unimportant. I think most would agree that an extreme case where a single individual owns 100% of the wealth and nobody else has anything would be a poor society, so the question becomes where does one start to worry?

If somebody can be one million times more productive, and you are one of the million people put out of work and unable to find further employment then you absolutely do lose.

Not being jealous just wondering how people who don't own or make robots will be able to make a living wage off of their labor in the coming decades. There's just not going to be enough work for them to do once we have unlimited, skilled, cheap robots.

the only solution i see without massive inequality is one where we can distribute wealth. it's not jealousy. it will be a technological utopia if executed correctly - nobody will have to work, we all get to do whatever we want all day.

there will always be inequality, but if we live in a just society it will be one where the least well off person is still reasonably well off. a guaranteed living wage might do that - and that's exactly what i'm talking about, actually. but there might be enough breathing room in the future to give more than a living wage.

obviously it's a little pie in the sky at this point, but in 10 years it won't seem so much.

I respectfully disagree. When you really think about it, the jobs which tend to become automated away are typically blue-collar, lower level jobs. Additionally, the jobs which tend to displace those older jobs are higher level, technical jobs. I personally believe that tech tends to widen income disparity as a result of this.

Doesn't help that many of those lower level jobs are being automated away in no small part thanks to altruistic legislation demanding they be paid more than their work is worth, raising the cost of labor to the point that the cost of automation is cheaper and more compatible with the value of the work. Pressures to innovate prompt innovation - go figure.

There's plenty I'd like to hire people to do, but can't afford to dole out "minimum wage" (much less a "living wage") and prolific benefits for - not because I'm cheap, but because I've only got limited funds to spend. Result is the unemployed have fewer options, and the self-altruistic compel others to support them.

The issue is that automation will only get cheaper as time goes on. Therefor in order to compete with automation the lower skilled will have to reduce their wage further over time in order to compete.

This begins to lead to an unsustainable situation in which the workers wage is no longer enough to sustain their own life in the economy.

Then you end up with three basic options.

1) Simply let people starve or rely on begging/charity/crime.

2) Support people via welfare or minimum income guarantee schemes, leading to a more socialist economy where there is no expectation to work. This increases power of government significantly because people are now dependant on these handouts for their livelihood.

3) Reduce expectations of quality of life. Stop building suburban homes and start building large "workers dorm" type accommodation. Feed people more effectively from shared canteens rather than individuals cooking for themselves etc. Hope that income from the spending of the wealthy and exports can keep the economy up when general consumer spending starts to drop.

The issue is that automation will only get cheaper as time goes on. Therefor in order to compete with automation the lower skilled will have to reduce their wage further over time in order to compete.

A classic narrow view meme, overlooking many other balancing factors. Thanks to increased automation: prices drop (making basics & luxuries more affordable to all), new markets are created, new mundane jobs are created before they can be automated. The cycle repeats; disparities happen, but they get worked out and equilibrium is restored.

I'm concluding the biggest barrier to self-sustinence is socialistic government has made functional low-income living practically illegal. You can't live in settings considered normal not long ago, you can't start businesses without traversing a bureaucratic nightmare, you can't own land without near-prohibitive taxes amounting to rent.

We've been here before many times. It will work out, suffering thru the same unlearned-from mistakes.

Housing and food costs don't seem to be getting any more affordable. There is only so much land to build or plant on.

There is also nothing to guarantee that new labour intensive industries will appear enabled by new technology. Startups are a classic example of this, they often employ extremely few people compared with their valuations and share of the economy.

You could eliminate minimum wage laws to make automation or outsourcing less attractive but with that you have to accept a regression in living standards for a great many people.

Well the problem in the US is that if you don't work, you don't necessarily enjoy more leisure because your purchasing power goes through the floor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com