Hacker News Reader

Comment by njharman | Hacker News Reader

Honest question: Is it not widely accepted that

1) Eventually, and probably pretty soon (within 100years), that there obviously won't be jobs for everyone. Automation, progress(efficiency gains) and increasing population makes it inevitable.

2) That a general "goal" of society is do away with jobs. In any traditional sense. To me we've been approaching that ever since agriculture provided ability to support specialists (those who don't spend time gathering/producing the food/resources they need). Such as scientists, artists and soldiers. The jobs keep moving "up" the ladder (away from production). Previous low-rung jobs get reduced in number by efficiency or replaced via automation. The end of this trend is that all basic needs are met by 0 to a tiny fraction of a percent of human labor and rest are all free to pursue specialist activities such as science, art, and killing each other.

View on HN

1) Seems to be increasing accepted. However, it looks like we're still on the early side of it, and the transition is going to be difficult. There will likely be a time when there are nowhere near enough jobs to go around, and not enough aid for the unemployed.

2) I wouldn't say this is widely accepted. On any topic about Universal Basic Income, one of the common refrains against it is "the dignity of work", and that labor gives purpose in life. I don't agree with that necessarily, but it seems to be a view held by a sizable segment of the population. You'll also see it come up in situations where welfare is mentioned.

If 2 is true our politics (at least in the U.S.) haven't caught up. We have to be comfortable with the idea of simply giving money away to people who are not earning it, or giving them more than the market would otherwise bear.

One of the ways we could do that is by making university tuition free, to say "well, if you can't get a job, you can always spend your time thinking instead." Instead we're restricting access to univerisities more and more based on the idea that a university education is only about getting a job and you should have to have "skin in the game".

We've been making it harder, not easier, for people who aren't working to access the collective product of society, and we're all poorer for that.

I feel like the US by design is poised to fail in competing against other countries when workforce becomes automated.

1 is perhaps widely accepted. It's been widely accepted for at least 150 years, and hasn't noticeably been coming true. (Though some would argue it has since 2008, or even since 1970).

2 doesn't actually argue that the goal is to do away with jobs, just with low-end jobs. I'm not sure that it's as widely accepted as 1, but I think it's more true than 1 is.

2) I have some issues with (though I agree with the general direction).

I would still describe science, art, etc. as a job (or at least any successful system will have to). There is a big difference between saying, "let's give people money, and hope they spend their time painting or writing", and saying "let's give people money contingent on their painting, writing, etc. with some of their time". In both cases, we don't strictly need the work, but one carries the connotation of laziness. That has proven to be a large sticking point in the current discussion.

As others have mentioned, there is a big difference between living in a system where basic needs are met and getting to that system. In particular, it has never been clear to me why we assume that people in power decide to accommodate the number of people we currently have. If the number of jobs is a problem, a despot can do the hard work of finding a system that works with fewer jobs or they can engage in population control by other means, hoping to delay the onset of the problem.

1) The problem is between now and then. I don't see many willing to cut back on their lifestyle to help those whose skills are no longer valuable.

Aren't specialist activities like science, art, and killing each other jobs?

Job is kind of a hard definition. Being compensated seems to be the main difference between job and; hobby, charity (working for "free"). Entrepreneurial endeavors lie in a muddy middle ground.

With increasing efficiency and automation "needs" will become increasingly cheap, approahing free. I believe without needing compensation just to survive, many will chose not to have jobs. They may, and probably will, still work.

To some extent. I think what the parent was getting at was that these could be pursued without worrying about the job being the most financially sensible choice available.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com