Hacker News Reader

Comment by IanDrake | Hacker News Reader

Forget the word "job" and instead use the word "value" to understand just how silly this idea is.

What he's saying is that no one needs to do anything of value anymore. You know, like the guy who built the house you live in, chopped down the trees it was built with, managed the project to build it, inspected the building to make sure it was put together correctly, etc...

Hundreds of people had jobs to make the shelter you value. They want something in exchange for that value. These pseudo intellectuals can't seem to understand this basic underpinning of civilization.

The exchange of value is as old as time and nothing is going to change that for a long time.

View on HN

Perhaps if you read the article without the intent to argue everything written because it contradicts your ideology?

> What he's saying is that no one needs to do anything of value anymore.

Can you point to the particular sentence where this is stated? Didn't think so.

The article I read said that the majority of jobs aren't paid at a level appropriate to their value, and that without the (rather limited US) welfare programs to support them, the bulk of employees would be below the poverty line, and with the impending automation of almost 50% of available jobs it'll be those bottom-line jobs that go.

The article then tells us that we'll need to redefine our attitudes to both income and work, but nowhere can I find the statement that "no one needs to do anything of value anymore." It tells us that almost half of the population already don't do anything of sufficient value, and many of those jobs are going to go away.

To your point. 51% of the American workforce makes less that 30 thousand dollars a year. That number is trending upward rapidly.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-...

"In short, it lets us say: enough already. Fuck work."

I feel like that's pretty clear.

You're right though, it does contradict my "ideology". I'm willing to be enlightened though but there were no rational arguments in this article to sway me.

They're trying to develop a rationale for the managed decline. They desperately want this to make sense because stopping everything is a necessary condition of addressing the anxieties they dwell on; primarily their worries about the environment.

Meanwhile, actual citizens have moved on; right or wrong they've empowered people that they think can make more "jerbs," so the ladder removal operation is on hold for the time being.

I think to many people on HN, houses might have no value. It's practically impossible to build any in California, since the existing residents do all they can to ban any new ones.

Maybe use office buildings or food delivery startups for your examples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com