Hacker News Reader

The main problem is that we're way too productive for the amount of people we have. The best solution in my mind is cut the average job back from 8 hours to 4-6 hours, and have some very strict rules about overtime. You basically have to make it so its worth it for the larger companies to hire more people rather than squeeze what they can out of their exisiting workforce.

"The main problem is that we're way too productive for the amount of people we have."

Look around you, there is plenty of work that needs done.

Doctors and nurses are overworked (so am I in my opinion). The streets could be cleaner. Public services are getting crapper and crapper (back in the 70's bin men came around once a week, walked up your drive and collected the bins, nowadays you have to do take it to the correct position outside your home). Teachers complain about workload.

Every time you have to wait in a queue, think if that would be there if there were more staff.

Its a complete misallocation of resources.

"Every time you have to wait in a queue, think if that would be there if there were more staff."

Luckily we are getting more and more of automated self-service tills. No humans, no drama.

More work for you.

The problem is that under the current system, every time a job is eliminated due to technological and productivity gains, another useless one is created, which, in turn eats out the productivity that was gained from eliminating the first one.

Politicians should stop looking at "job creation" as a means of keeping people busy and consuming. A job should be done only if the society benefits from it.

Fact remains, looking on statistics and society as a whole, automation has rationalized work a lot. Between 1970 and 1990 automation had made work (at least in Sweden where I live) 75% more effective. Did we use this cut down on working hours? Did it give workers that high increase in wages? No. In Sweden the general discourse talks about "creating jobs". Why? Why would we want to create job that oftentimes isn't needed? That it is a philosophical question looking beyond the national and political economics.

> Its a complete misallocation of resources.

Where have the resources (people) been over-allocated to?

We have a government that sees the unemployed as vermin, rats to be extinguished. A government with a puritanical "work will set you free" mindset.

I'll give you that, as a somewhat tinted perspective on the governments views, but I'm not sure where you want to go with it? Every government aims for minimal unemployment, it's one of their key tasks - to get people into work. I'm not sure you'll find anyone willing to say "You can work if you want to [you can leave your old friends behind], otherwise here just live on other peoples taxes".

People working in shit jobs for shit pay to die early

Most people work jobs that they do not enjoy. Working is a means to an end, survival. Please do define for me a system where the jobs are all lovely and nobody has to do anything they don't want to do. There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system.

> Working is a means to an end, survival.

Ugh. I find this idea very distasteful. Admittedly my view is tainted by depression, so it hurts extra to be told my only reason to do work I don't like, is so I can keep experiencing a life I don't like. (But, I am apparently still here because I don't entirely dislike it, and/or have hope it will get better.) I do recognize being upset about this may be seen as childish, naive, or entitled, but...

> There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system.

I think you're missing the point, or at least something I think about. We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? You "did your time", so every other human after you should have to as well? I don't know what the point of progress as a society is, if it does not result in improving the happiness of the people.

Now, if you want to argue that unpleasant but necessary work actually improves happiness, or that people need to find their own happiness through spiritualism/religion etc., I could see some merit. But I'm reading basically "Life will always be shitty, shut up and get back to work so you can survive another day of your shitty life." Which seems like pointless, soul-crushing, circular logic I'm not willing to accept. Which again, may be naivety/depression on my part.

We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived?

There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. Mainly because the alternative is considered worse (the fact that considering otherwise is often brushed off as mental illness indicates how embedded this attitude is). Your initial assumption seems to be that life is about being happy, and the only things you do should make you happy. I question where that came from?

If reality isn't soul crushing[1], well, you and I see a different reality. Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. I'm unwilling to accept statements of "the world will magically become a place of fairy tales where no one goes hungry, everyone enjoys their days, and life is fair." I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s".

I don't think depression plays a part, I don't even think it's naivety per se. It's an attitude thing really, I'm pretty bleak. However, I believe my position to be consistent with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be. If wishes were wings and all that...

[1] No statements of souls being a real thing was meant.

> There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving.

"Meant to" implies some intelligence other than our own guiding life and the universe, I think. Do you posit such a thing? I happen to believe in one, which may have something to do with assumptions and attitudes I've expressed.

So, are you one of the ones that considers death worse than "struggling to survive"? Why?

> Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it.

True on some levels, and yet I'm arguing we are the most empowered we have ever been, to actually change it. If we achieve the "Star Trek" future of cheap food replicators etc. we will be even more so. Would you argue we shouldn't look forward to such things, because "life is meant to be a struggle where most people barely survive"?

> I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s".

That's one of the things we can change. I'm not going to argue about how realistic that is, or how it should be done. I guess the essence of the differences between you and me/others, is that you seem unwilling to even give it much consideration. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"?

No, I don't believe in a God/Purpose/etc. If you do, and take from that a greater meaning, then it's a good thing! I'd question why such a being would leave humanity to spend thousands of years in suffering before reaching the general happiness part - but I'm glib.

Death is not worse than struggling to survive imo and death can be a perfectly rational choice, I simply choose to go on because of family and a sense of responsibility for their pain.

Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"?

I don't argue against change. I don't impede action. Occasionally I giveto/support both. I think that when your expectations of what life really is are unrealistic then you're doomed to be unhappy. I think that's the reason religion focusses on rewards in another life that is un-knowable, because that does not result in unhappiness in the short term due to being "short changed" (and indeed improves the acceptance of current lot in life).

This is all perspective, it's all my point of view. I'm no great/deep thinker - and I don't claim mine is the only way. I do like discussion though :)

I think it's important to separate making peace with the state of things from accepting it.

On the one hand, I consider it a personal goal to practice the ability of being happy despite my circumstances, accepting things as they are (and perhaps changing those things that I think I can change).

On the other hand, whether 'nature or nurture', I wish to make things better as well, to fight things I think are wrong, and build things that I think are right.

Keeping the latter from affecting the former is difficult sometimes, but fundamentally I see them as two completely separate matters.

> I'll give you that, as a somewhat tinted perspective on the governments views, but I'm not sure where you want to go with it? Every government aims for minimal unemployment, it's one of their key tasks - to get people into work. I'm not sure you'll find anyone willing to say "You can work if you want to [you can leave your old friends behind], otherwise here just live on other peoples taxes".

Every government also knows that we will, in the foreseeable future, have unemployed people and that their numbers will increase. (Mostly) not because these people don't want to work or aren't the entrepreneurs they should be, but simply because we are constantly rationalizing and automating our societies and less and human work is needed to keep the machine running.

So, the question is: how should we treat this pool of workless people that will always exist? My suggestion is: not like shit. I'm in Sweden, and seen from an international perspective (although I'm not content) we are quite helpful to these people. Basic income might be a solution, but that will most likely make dirty and simple work look extremely unattractive. It will drive up the prices for the kind of work that we are normally used to paying next to nothing for. That wont be politically popular at all.

> Please do define for me a system where the jobs are all lovely and nobody has to do anything they don't want to do. There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system.

No, but please remember that there is also a lot (historically) that hasn't worked the way things work right now. The technical advances and rationalizing potentials are gigantic and have the potential to reduce working hours drastically.

"that will most likely make dirty and simple work look extremely unattractive. It will drive up the prices for the kind of work that we are normally used to paying next to nothing for. That wont be politically popular at all"

Yes! Exactly. This is the failure that people don't seem to understand; the idea that taxes pay for welfare, that it's a simple redistribution.

The reality is much more complex. We deliberately make living without labouring difficult so that the rich get their luxuries. You cannot have extreme wealth without poor people; you need an army of little ones to do anything that a robot can't do yet.

Your taxes do not pay anywhere close to the amount you benefit from the existence of the working classes.

Ehhhh... I don't really know where to start here. We have viewpoints and value systems that differ on the most basic level. I don't give a single fuck for the historical system. The historical system is a system of rich and poor, of serfs and lords, full of exploitation at every level. Forget about it.

'Living on other peoples taxes' is total nonsense. It posits a world within which my work allows you to be lazy when that is not the case at all. You can be lazy regardless of whether or not I work in the vast majority of cases. Very few jobs are actually essential and even fewer are useful to the 'lazy' person (because they would not be wealthy enough to patronise restaurants, take luxury holidays, drive flash cars, etc.)

The UK has a ton of housing stock. It exists, it's there. We need a bit more, but generally, people work in order to pay a wealthy landlord; they don't work because the home needs any labour in order for it to persist.

We do need some level of labour in order for society to continue. But I argue that we don't need to force people by withholding (yes, withholding. not failing to present them - land ownership is a withholding of the commons) basics from them.

People will work anyway because they want more. The bottom level doesn't have to be serf status.

Money is a distraction. It is the current way of distributing resources. It doesn't have to be.

There is a distinction between giving people the opportunity to work and therefore increase their wealth; and forcing them to work by withholding things and renting it back to them. The former is great! The latter is evil.

Money itself isn't so terrible. It's a fungible unit of value. People are always going to engage in private transactions. Getting rid of money would just make the second side of the transaction more subjective and therefore less efficient. (yes, markets getting more efficient combined with the baked in assumptions are why the system is coming unglued. but that doesn't mean trying to make them less efficient will fix it)

The real problem is, as you said, extremely high rent (even if you "buy") just for a place to exist. This puts labor in an extremely weak negotiating position (people being worried about losing their jobs!), which any true free market proponent should be against.

Imagine how things would change if a minimum wage worker made enough in a few months to cover their expenses for a year IF they mostly stayed home, ate inexpensive food, didn't buy more clothes/gadgets, etc. Run the numbers with current prices and you'll see that this isn't some planned economy dream, but pretty close to current conditions if the rent paid to banks (on money they're mostly allowed to conjure from thin air) were taken out of the picture! Gosh after several months of work and no longer under duress, workers might even be in a position to demand a raise!

Spot on. I'm not against money per se; I take issue with the fact it's used at every level rather than only where it makes sense.

It doesn't make sense to use pure supply and demand for land at the very bottom level of human sized parcels. It makes sense to say that a studio should be cheaper than a 1BR should be cheaper than a 2BR and so on; but not that the studio should be allowed to tend towards its absolute maximum price (e.g. roughly minimum wage).

Why? You don't even need a moral argument. It's simply inefficient, a huge drag on the economy. It means people spend 90% of their time scrambling just to exist and never do anything more.

It is like if I had to spend 90% of my CPU power just to run the OS. Bonkers.

It benefits no-one but landlords who in many cases are in a zero risk situation (you own a home and then you still own a home; the monetary value is really a game, it's not a real risk).

> It doesn't make sense to use pure supply and demand for land at the very bottom level of human sized parcels

I don't think you even have to go this deep.

The banks are the ones that create new money, multiplying deposits tenfold based on the valuation of the assets they're writing notes on. But that valuation is set entirely by the selling prices!

So in this circular situation, the only downward pressure on housing is what the banks will loan (especially with further down-payment-erosion like PMI), which is set by the carrying cost of the capital (interest) times what people are willing to pay per month. There is no risk of default since on paper, the asset is worth slightly more than the loan.

I think if you were to revoke financial primacy and eg disallow repossession of residences in bankruptcy, you'd see a pretty quick correction as there would then be an actual risk that someone would take a loan to buy a house and then decide servicing that debt was pointless.

But there's no political capital, since everyone that has bought property (even and especially with a mortgage) wants to see the bubble keep going up forever.

My point on historical systems is not that they are right, but that something better has never been implemented. Probably means it isn't an easy problem, and that the solution needs to be defined properly - rather than proclaimed "there must be a better way".

I'm not trying to straw man or anything, i'm genuinely interested.

Living without making any contribution to taxes is a net drain. That's not nonsense, at all. Whether you want to enable that choice for anyone is most definitely a choice/view. The NHS, housing, police state, roads, etc all this shit costs labour and money. The fact that pensioners are the largest benefit drain and are predicted to increase significantly as a population is of note. Lazy isn't really the point. The argument isn't even about being lazy, you can be lazy as long as you aren't funding it using "other peoples" labour. That's what you'll find a decent proportion of the population are against.

So is the plan to nationalise ownership of all housing to allow free accommodation for all? Or simply to cap rents on a national/regional/other level?

Distribution of capital and inheritance is a root cause of the problem at the moment in terms of housing prices. Those who can afford the deposit and those who cannot. Not easily solved. Similarly lending practices strongly favour buy to let.

I'm torn on the withholding thing. I see both sides (and I've spent plenty of time on the dole, and been sanctioned on more than one occasion). I met all sorts of people at workshops and training sessions. I saw a fundamentally broken welfare system, I saw a lot of people paid to push paper, I saw people who thought they were exploiting it, and I saw some people who were both down on their luck and genuinely fascinating.

I'm not actually against a citizens wage (whatever it's called) - I think it'd be really interesting. I'm just not sure how viable it is long term. I'd happily vote for greens again if they had a shot at implementing it.

We doubtless have very different value systems / views though.

In the UK we have a housing crisis so acute that even "well paid" professionals are paying 50%+ of income on a 1 bedroom flat. [...] When and how will it end?

The UK makes it prohibitively hard to build new housing, and, consequently, in the face of a rising population and not-rising housing supply, prices rise. It will end when the UK liberalizes building: http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/britains-dysfunctional-pro... .

It's like San Francisco only way bigger!

It sounds like you think you're disagreeing with him, yet the housing crisis, as you say, is due to limited building, and lots of MPs have property portfolios which more building will threaten the value of. Meanwhile those who already own large properties are happy to see wealth transferred by this arrangement from the young and poor to the old and wealthy and reliably vote for it to continue (while complaining about 'subsidy junkies' who want something for nothing).

So a simple problem to solve, except for the fact that its being intentionally inflicted on people by those with power for their financial benefit.

The key detail not mentioned in that article is that this is primarily an issue of London, which the rest of the country does not share. Outside London, house prices are a lot more reasonable and there isn't really a major shortage.

The planning permission details in there appear to be a distraction - release of low-value "green belt" land, like that pictured in the article, does happen where needed. The big problem in London is that any proposal for new construction will be met with fierce opposition from nearby homeowners on the grounds of congested roads, limited parking space, overuse of local amenities, and lowering the value of their own properties.

Quitting EU could help with the property market. EU immigration is out of any control.

> When and how will it end?

The situation is caused by the government attempting to control lending cost. This has happened before and it will happen again. Essentially governments are currently attempting to create a massive wealth transfer from, well mostly everybody, to their favored causes (firstly to government spending, and second to property values, through banks). To do this they are taking out what effectively are huge loans.

So central banks are painting themselves into a corner. They are making it extremely easy for the government to borrow. Why ? Because this will make it easy for those governments to pay off the debt burden that has become too much for them. Of course governments aren't paying off debts at all, rather they are increasing spending (look past the austerity rhetoric to the actual numbers : taking into account that their debt servicing cost is decreasing by a LOT, they're actually increasing spending by over 10%, all of them).

This makes those debt burdens a lot worse, because that cheap borrowing cost is temporary. Debt that is serviceable at 0.2% interest costs double as much in debt service at 0.4%, which is a tiny change.

So the situation becomes more and more unstable. This could last a few years though.

So what will happen next. Most/all of the governments in Europe (and the US) will likely end up in the position Greece was in 2 years ago, or worse, due to a tiny rise in interest rates. Then they will default on at least some debt. This will cause an enormous spike in interest rates, so it will become prohibitively expensive for governments to loan money at all, and they will lose the ability to rollover debt. So they either come up with 100% of GDP without loaning money (ie. massive inflation), or they default on more debt. This will crash banks (but don't worry : government guarantees have been gutted so it won't cost the government anything. Google "bail-in legislation").

At this point interest rates will shoot up to 10%, maybe 20%. All those investment properties in Londen will suddenly be extremely costly to their investors (their monthly payments will double or triple in a year), and go on the market (the problem is not too little housing, the problem is that for the moment it's too valuable to invest in real estate, given the rising prices).

And then we're back in 1992 or so.

> buckling themselves in with the student debt and the mortgage to spend their entire adult life under the heel of the capitalists.

Sadly, you can be assured of one thing : when this story has played out, you'll be worse off than today, for at least a few years. And God help those with student debt, or even worse : those with student debt backed by a state (US, UK, Australia, Netherlands all have large amounts of people with lots of student debt backed by the state).