Hacker News Reader

Comment by vertis | Hacker News Reader

Programmers have, for the most part, been immune to the negative effects of the way capitalism applies technology. Indeed, we're responsible at times as enablers.

If I do an exercise where I pretend that one of the FANG has managed to create an AI that can program, it's easier to feel the way other people feel about technology.

Would the FANG use the AI to replace programmers? Absolutely.

And what then? I can't possibly compete with a software program. One that can work 24hrs a day. One where adding more resources to a project is spinning up another instance.

We need to stop pretending that everyone is going to be able to work themselves to success and stop making villains out of people who are on welfare.

Disclaimer: I'm not from the US. I'm already a citizen of a country with a stronger safety net (Australia). Even here though, we have a concept of "dole bludger". It really has to go.

View on HN

What is needed for the person being displaced by technology, is to have an ownership stake in assets, such that they no longer need to earn a wage to survive. That is the ultimate solution, if there is no way a human can provide value.

And this ownership stake needs to be acquired while the human still has value to exchange for that ownership stake.

Expecting society to carry people who no longer can provide economic value to others is not going to be sustainable.

Lets run a mental experiment - tens of millions of people are going to be out of jobs when driverless cars arrive. Are they meant to get ownership stake in the conpany to replace them, lets say Uber and Waymo? Is that realistically possible?

Lets imagine it happens - how is having 30 million rent -seekers sustainable? If all the actual work is done by machines, whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute?

> what's the point of their owners, what do they contribute?

Same applies to the existing owners of Uber and Waymo. If self-driving cars do take over the world, it makes no sense for this technology to be controlled by a handful of wealthy investment corporations, simply because they had the cash available to fund some of it at the start.

Thats a fair point, in an automation utopia current economic model makes no sence

> whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute?

they contribute to the creation of the asset via supplying capital in the first place. And for taking on the risk of this contribution, they get to own their portion of the future output of said asset.

Thats a geneeric argument, you cant just apply it to any debate without scruitiny.

It does not work for many assets: land, mineral rights, etc. are risk free themselves and weren't crated.

Someone who is relying on the government to fund their lifestyle is going to have lower status than someone who is contributing to the maintenance of their country. I don't know of a way to justify an alternative to that.

Someone choosing to be on welfare when they can handle themselves should be ashamed.

> relying on the government to fund their lifestyle

This sort of rhetoric needs to stop as well. Public funding of someone's basic needs of food and shelter isn't a lifestyle.

And anyway, a person receiving such funds probably paid for it already in taxes - usually, they're just taking out a bit from what they've already contributed to.

People raising 5 kids on gov support in Switzerland getting CHF 6500 a month for unemployment. Playing video games all day, smoking weed and nothing to return back to the society.

I’ve stayed in one of these low income housing communities in the outskirts of Zurich. These were Italian immigrants that had trouble finding a job. The wife couldn’t speak German and had no education. Decided to fuck it and go along with raising kids anyways.

If this is not lifestyle, I don’t know what is.

Raising kids is a significant contribution to society.

Though sadly, as your comment demonstrates, it's a form of labour that is very often undervalued.

You’re not wrong. I wonder what their future would be if the society squanders their productivity. Switzerland would turn into Somalia eventually.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the comparison to Somalia?

Seems like a very different situation, as Somalia is still recovering from civil war and genocide, and due to this, much of the economic support for its people is being provided by Somali diaspora around the world who send funds back home. Productivity potentially being squandered is the least of their problems really.

> Public funding of someone's basic needs of food and shelter isn't a lifestyle.

It sounds like a big chunk of a lifestyle, something like 30% of my lifestyle is food and shelter. What do you want to call it?

And that isn't really germane to the debate. If someone is relying on the government for basic food and shelter they aren't going to be able to hold a candle to someone who is economically independent. One of those two is just more important and respectable than the other.

> usually, they're just taking out a bit from what they've already contributed to

If you see taxes as some sort of savings program then fair enough, but then would you have objections if people like me opt out of paying into that part? Because I reckon I could set up an insurance program that would cost a fraction as much. Pretty sure I'm paying for a lot of people who haven't contributed as much as they are taking out (and I'm pretty sure most people think that is the point).

>If someone is relying on the government for basic food and shelter they aren't going to be able to hold a candle to someone who is economically independent.

Relying on an employer for food and shelter makes one no more economically independent than reliance on a government. Unless you're wealthy, you're left begging to one system or another.

My point is that when someone is currently relying on a state welfare programme to meet their basic needs, it doesn't imply a lack of contribution to society - as is too often the connotation.

I think it's easy to take that view, and I used to think that way too.

But on closer examination, there seem to be plenty of people who rely on the government for their lifestyle, have higher status than most people, yet do not contribute. There's a huge number of boondoggles that "employ" hordes of people who pretend to do useful things.

To me this is a bigger problem than your usual chronically unemployed person, because mom and pop have already spent plenty of time warning the kids against this situation. People who end up there are probably not there voluntarily, and it doesn't offend my notion of fairness as much as the above group.

> Someone who is relying on the government to fund their lifestyle is going to have lower status than someone who is contributing to the maintenance of their country.

The people who don't contribute to the country and have a lifestyle to speak of have, in fact, a higher status because they're rich as hell and often pay less taxes than the average person.

You don't want people living on welfare? Give them better alternatives. And no, minimum wage that effectively pays less than being unemployed is not what I mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com