Hacker News Reader

Comment by yoha | Hacker News Reader

I still don't get why there is so much worry about keeping the same amount of jobs. When people imagine future, they like to think of robots doing chores for them and having time to work on personal projects or take leisure time. It means that the first thing we are expecting from automation is not more productivity but less work. Of course, it can be socially explained because the current way of thinking about economy does not allow for a gradual change to less work.

I guess one of the topic that will have to be discussed here at some point is the concept of basic income [1]. Its advocates think that it will help such a transition by helping reducing the amount of existing jobs while making sure that everyone can sustain oneself.

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

View on HN

>> robots doing chores for them and having time to work on personal projects or take leisure time

This has already happened. Washing machines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, and mass produced food have turned what used to be a full time difficult job into a chore for your spare time. It created more time for people to do paid work. The ironic thing is that nowadays people love some of those chores (like cooking, growing vegetables, or making bread). We should aspire to a society where people have the choice to take pride in what they do.

> We should aspire to a society where people have the choice to take pride in what they do.

And to do what they take pride in.

How many people today are really proud of what they do? How many aren't? How many are simply doing it because it pays the bills? Wouldn't it be much better if they didn't have to do that drudgery anymore, and could instead focus on what they really want?

This kind of arguments is at risk of being condescending. It is perfectly respectable to spend you day working on boring tasks just to get a pay check. In fact a lot of more desirable jobs have large amounts of drudge, admin, and pointless meetings. That is a consequence of doing activities in a group for something greater than your own vanity. Hobbies remain fun because they are less consequential; you can afford a little indulgence. Making things for other people creates risk; which is mitigated with boring repetitive procedures.

I think you're missing the point. It's not there's anything wrong with people _doing_ boring useless tasks, the problem is that they _have to do_ boring and useless tasks.

It's not condescending towards the people, it's criticism towards the system. The system is wrong, the people are its victims.

Exactly. It about having the choice in doing them or doing something instead.

That kind of article is what people say when they don't want anybody to talk about basic income.

Basic income and increased progressive taxes are a good idea to solve mass unemployment. However, as proofed by recent London riots, they increase crime rates. People just have too much spare time they cannot fulfill with meaningful activities. We always want more money than we have today. The only way to increase income when there are no jobs is to take them from somebody around. Forcefully or silently.

Do Londoners have basic income? It seems like unemployment, police brutality and perceived social exclusion were major factors rather than "spare time." All those factors are why we should be concerned with the creation of an adequate safety net because exclusion and unemployment fostered by extreme income inequality create the conditions for violence, although we should be concerned about alleviating suffering regardless of the of potential for it to affect rich folk.

Londoners, and people in the UK as a whole, explicitly do not have a basic income as the term is commonly understood.

The post you're replying to is nonsense. There isn't a "basic income", there's a set of patchily overlapping benefits which provide housing and money to live off.

The London riots were not to do with "boredom", but poor race relations between the Metropolitan Police and the black community. The trigger event was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan ; rather similar to the 1992 LA riots, although not on the same scale. Once the race riot had got going and the police lost percieved control of the streets, opportunistic looting started.

> However, as proofed by recent London riots, they increase crime rates.

That's a strong causal claim you're making there, where's your evidence?

Subsidize mobiles, laptops and tablets.

Oh and maybe food and shelter.

I worry because I don't see our safety net radically changing before mass unemployment. But I agree that should be more of the focus rather than holding onto to an antiquated notion of full unemployment.

The jobs markets and cost of living between countries will gradually level out. The UN data from that TED talk shows there is much less horrible poverty but it still exists. I think the risk is virtually every country becoming a Balkinized, classist place like India. Unfortunately, it seems the momentum is going that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com