
Welcome to the Post-Work Economy - ALee
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3056483/welcome-to-the-post-work-economy
======
seibelj
The article is a chain of economic fallacies.

> Modern economies are increasingly based around information. Information
> "wants to be free"—as the saying goes—but free things are bad for
> capitalism, because capitalism is about competition and making profits.

Tons of companies are based on providing information. Even if the information
is public, sorting it and providing it efficiently has real value (such as
google). Others do their own private research and re-sell it. Capitalists use
and contribute to open source software. This statement is absurd.

> In time, technology is likely to drive many things to "zero marginal cost."
> Energy, for example, won't be subject to market forces. We'll just have a
> solar panel on the roof and each kilowatt hour will essentially be free.

In this "energy is free" economy, who will be building and providing me with
my free solar panels, and then installing and maintaining the electrical
system in my home or business? What happens when it's cloudy?

This whole article is like a undergraduate philosophy student who thinks he or
she has the silver bullet for humanity, _if only people would listen!_

~~~
c3534l
It's also using the word free in two different senses. Basically in the phrase
"wants to be free" that's "free as in freedom, not as in beer." The meaning is
that it's difficult to restrict the flow of information and you cannot reverse
it. But then the author is claiming that information is free as in it doesn't
cost anything. Then he's using the word information in two different ways,
confusing "information economy" with data and then invoking some sort of
magical osmosis by which an information economy doesn't involve money.
Unpacking the chain of reasoning involved just in that single sentence, I see
the following assumptions and arguments:

we have an "information economy"

information wants to be free

it doesn't cost anything to produce information

an information economy is one that doesn't cost any money to run

money is important to capitalism

without money capitalism doesn't work

since our economy doesn't require money to run, capitalism isn't working

------
nateabele
This article is terrible. Not only is it full of false comparisons, but every
example cited as a supposed failure of capitalism or free markets is actually
the _direct_ result of government intervention. A friend challenged me when I
mentioned this, so I wrote a full take-down:
[https://gist.github.com/nateabele/cffa0c54ab0385bbba37](https://gist.github.com/nateabele/cffa0c54ab0385bbba37)

~~~
haberman
I watched the video you linked under the text "kids' version", concerning
fractional reserve banking:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8)

I believe that video contains a significant error. Around 13:00-16:00, it
claims that a fractional reserve ratio of 9:1 with an initial capitalization
of $1111.12 can lead to overall debt of almost $100,000 being issued. I
believe this is incorrect and misunderstands how fractional reserve banking
works.

The video's scenario is that a bank has a $1111.12 capitalization, no
depositors, and issues a $10,000 loan to a customer who immediately writes a
check for the $10,000 amount (which then gets deposited at another bank). The
video seems to think that this bank can continue operating by fulfilling the
check with $8888.88 of "debt money" that it just made up.

I'm pretty sure that the bank (call it A) has become insolvent and the check
will not be able to be deposited at bank B. Bank B has no reason to accept
Bank A's IOUs -- they aren't real money. If bank A doesn't have enough hard
cash to satisfy the checks written by _both_ its depositors and its loan
customers, the bank has become insolvent and has to close its doors. So in
reality, the 9:1 ratio means that $1111.12 of real money can only become
$10,000 in "debt money", total, not $100,000.

~~~
rvense
There are no such ratios, money multipliers are a myth. Money is created from
nothing when banks lend.

[http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf)

~~~
haberman
Your link is describing the UK, which has no reserve requirement. So
naturally, a ratio would not apply there.

> Money is created from nothing when banks lend.

In one sense you are right. If you add up everyone's net worth, it is greater
than the amount of money issued by the central bank. But there is a natural
limit on this process, because banks have to be able to fulfill checks cashed
at other banks with real, central bank issued money.

~~~
rvense
The central bank in my country have issued similar reports describing the
relationship between reserves and possible loans as indirect, even in the
presence of the reserve requirement here. This requirement, as I understand
it, a legal restriction, not an economic one, and it is rather soft. Imposing
such a requirement does not fundamentally change the nature of how money is
created.

> Banks have to be able to fulfill checks cashed at other banks with real,
> central bank issued money.

Increasingly less so. Especially since nobody buys a house with cash, and
that's what most loans are for.

~~~
haberman
> Imposing such a requirement does not fundamentally change the nature of how
> money is created.

I never said that it did. I said that it imposed a limit on _how much_ money
can be created in this way.

> Increasingly less so. Especially since nobody buys a house with cash, and
> that's what most loans are for.

This is not a matter of nuance. If I sell my house for $500k, the buyer wires
me $500k that shows up in my bank account. To complete this wire, the seller's
bank has to move $500k of cold hard central bank cash to my bank. This isn't
fuzzy or flexible. If the seller's bank can't do this, the seller's bank is
insolvent and has to close its doors or take some other measure to get more
central bank money.

It is true that I might then go buy a new house for $600k, using my $500k as a
downpayment on a new loan. And if the seller of my new house uses the same
bank as the buyer of my old house, only $100k of central bank money actually
moved anywhere.

But if I don't do that, the banks are on the hook to actually move money
comprising the full amount of the sale. The video I linked to upthread
fundamentally misrepresents this fact.

------
stretchwithme
If all human jobs are eliminated, that means you never have to hire a human to
get something accomplished.

"But what about those who can't afford the super expensive robots?" you say?

If they are too expensive, you'll just have to trade with your fellow humans
who also can't afford them, just like you do now. Millions of people all over
the world do jobs that are already automated. The Amish even do it right here
in the US, if you need a blatant example.

Of course, robots will become cheap just like every technology eventually gets
cheap. They are only expensive in fantasies where only one variable is allowed
to change and all logical consequences are ignored.

The reality is that building houses and growing food and transportation and
medical care and many other things are all going to get much cheaper.

And so will writing code, prototyping new inventions, market assessment,
manufacturing and distribution. Anybody that wants to dream up new apps or
physical inventions all day will be able to sell to a global market. A global
market of bots who filter the millions of new things for the exact needs and
desires of their human masters.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Well, they'll be cheap as long as energy is cheap. And solar cells are not yet
made without fossil fuels.

------
npx
In terms of GDP per capita, I live in one of the lowest income counties in a
state that is well below the national average. I'm not sure if many of the
points made in this article would be felt so viscerally by someone living in
SF making $100k+/yr, but I found it very interesting.

It's worth noting that I have received exactly $0.00 in government
subsidization (student loans, disability, unemployment, etc) - I've never
applied for or received a penny of it. Perhaps the most interesting thing
about rural communities like mine is that the people here who actually make
money - farmers - are among the largest recipients of government subsidization
in human history due to a subsidy program which was conceived when
industrialized agriculture was still a nascent technology.

I feel there is a sort of cognitive dissonance when it comes to things like
this in that many successful people are where they are in large part due to
the governmental aid they've received,but these same people tend to be the
most intense detractors of any legislation that would help everyone else.

I don't have any good answers and I sensed a bit of naivety in the article,
but I feel it made some good points and asked a lot of very important
questions.

~~~
brianwawok
You got $0 in government subsidisation? You don't use public roads? The police
don't service you? You didn't get a free public education?

~~~
jMyles
Do we have to hash this out in every HN thread that touches on economics?
These arguments are very weak.

Plenty of people don't believe in police. Plenty of people homeschool and / or
don't like what government schools have done.

The "who will build the roads" trope is so tired that - and I'm not kidding
here - one of the ice cream vendors at the Porcupine Festival has a best-
selling flavor, "Who will build the rocky roads?"

~~~
mistermann
Maybe we wouldn't have to hash this out in every thread if you'd explain how
some people don't benefit from police or public roads (whether you "believe in
them" or not).

~~~
jMyles
I don't mean to be undiplomatic, but there's no way I'm going to encapsulate
this is an HN comment. Books! You must read books!

If you want something really easy to start with (albeit a surface scratcher),
try _The Revolution: A Manifesto_ by Ron Paul.

I don't even understand why anybody thinks that the default position is that
everyone benefits from police. The burden is on you to prove that one.

~~~
haberman
> The burden is on you to prove that one.

If every modern society has chosen to have police, I think the burden is on
you to prove that every modern society is wrong.

~~~
icebraining
_The truths of which the masses now approve are the very truths that the
fighters at the outposts held to in the days of our grandfathers. We fighters
at the outposts nowadays no longer approve of them; and I do not believe there
is any other well-ascertained truth except this, that no community can live a
healthy life if it is nourished only on such old marrowless truths._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People)

------
jokoon
Well I'm 30 and have been unemployed all my life. I'm safe at home, trying to
make a game. Jobs aren't necessary anymore. That's what the industry and
automation are for. In a way, you can say capitalism allows the development of
industries, which in the end seems to reduce the necessity of having
capitalism in the first place.

I didn't read the article, but I always sense there is this weird belief that
"people must work and belong to something so that society can function". I
can't really express it. What bothers me is that somehow, even after the new
deal and social programs, not having a salary or income is seen as some sort
of a bad thing, and often, it will be a bad thing for your mental health
(isolation, lack of personal goals).

I guess that is what people don't like about capitalism, is that it builds an
inability for anyone to share and live in communities normally, because the
political argument of altruism seems to lead to communism and soviet evils.
It's really hard to make a link between capitalism and the lack of
fulfillment, despite the increase in wealth, but at some point I'm sure people
would prefer an economy which isn't so focused on growth, but rather on long
term development.

~~~
elementalest
"Jobs aren't necessary anymore."

What a statement. It rings of naivete. How would you pay for your living
expenses? Are you living with someone who pays your living expenses? Do they
work? Or are you on social welfare?

Who maintains the automation? Who designs these systems? Until robots and AI
can do everything (which is a long way away), there's always going to be
something that no one wants to do. Getting paid is an incentive to do it. We
are also a long way from becoming a non growth focused economy. Until such a
time as strong AI and a non growth focused economy become a reality (if ever),
jobs are necessary, and always will be.

People also like to be useful, to feel like they matter, or be part of
something greater than themselves. Jobs are one avenue for this fulfilment.
Someone who is intentionally unemployed is not being useful. If you are on
welfare, or your supported by family, then you are a burden. Others are
required to work, but you choose not to at their expense. Why are you entitled
to do what you want, when others can't? That is seen as unfair, so you cop
resentment.

"I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong
to something so that society can function"."

I suspect you believe this to justify your lack of motivation for employment.
There is a big epidemic of this type of attitude in Japan (neet's) [1], where
young people refuse to work and just live off their families income. It might
be different if you had decided to quit your job and make your dream game. You
were never employed and don't want to be.

I think we are in a weird point in western society, where we are generally
more well off than any other time. The basic costs of living are relatively
low for a single person, particularly if they live with their parents. A lot
of the basic things have become much easier than before. So, its much easier
to be unemployed (particularly in welfare based societies), and people will
find all sorts of ways to justify their apparent lack of motivation.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET)

~~~
jokoon
I live in france, and am on welfare. Unemployment has been at 10% for a long
time now.

What I mean is that we should not encourage people to do any job, and let them
pursue things they like instead. So many people live on minimum wage, and
don't go back to school.

I think it's a great thing to live with your parents. And if there are a lot
of NEETs in japan, maybe there are reasons behind it which go beyond
"naivete". Calling this an epidemic without trying to understand the reasons
behind it is easy.

> Jobs are one avenue for this fulfillment.

What about working at fast food, mopping floors, bullshit jobs, etc?
Fulfillment happens when you are educated enough to work in a domain you can
be fulfilled with. Nobody gets a raise in those jobs.

> Others are required to work, but you choose not to at their expense.

Nobody is required to work, they decided to, it's consented, not slavery, and
get both the advantages and the downsides. That's exactly what I'm talking
about here. People can do what they want, yet if they work, most of the time
it will be minimum wage, because everyone wants to work, so of course
employers will always drive wages down. So of course it makes sense to stay
unemployed.

> and people will find all sorts of ways to justify their apparent lack of
> motivation.

Why should people have any motivation? Is it some kind of a moral duty? Don't
you read that people can be angry, desperate and resentful about their
economic situation?

> then you are a burden

That's the worse thing you can call an unemployed person. Not only am I not
interacting with anybody, but now I should feel guilty for my situation? How
do you want me to improve my situation if you accuse me? I don't really like
to continue this kind of conversation, because it only deal with social
constructs, which aren't really good standards.

~~~
elementalest
If you are unemployed because you are genuinely unable to find work, then
that's an entirely different matter (and I apologise, and wish you all the
best for finding work). I got the impression that you were unemployed by
choice, especially given your various statements (and the rest of this post is
partially prefaced on that assumption). Therein lies the problem. While your
personal situation may work for you, it will not work for a vast majority of
people. So my response was in regard to the various broad unqualified
statements you made. I personally don't have anything against your choice. I
can understand where you are coming from. However, your statements seem to
reveal a certain level of naivete.

There are many people that must work in order to pay their families living
expenses as they are married and have children. Even with welfare they might
not have enough money to live above the poverty line. So they must work. While
they could choose not to work, its hardly much of a choice.

I'm guessing your living with your parents (based on your statements). What if
your parents decided to stop working? While in your circumstance they might
have saved up enough money to live comfortably for many years, they had to
work to get it in the first place. There are many people that cannot live with
their parents for various reasons.

> Jobs are one avenue for this fulfillment.

I didn't say jobs are the only avenue for fulfilment, merely one avenue to it.
People in undesirable jobs generally aren't there by choice. This breaks down
your assertion that jobs aren't necessary.

> I think it's a great thing to live with your parents. And if there are a lot
> of NEETs in japan, maybe there are reasons behind it which go beyond
> "naivete". Calling this an epidemic without trying to understand the reasons
> behind it is easy.

Its an epidemic regardless of the reason behind it. I'm fully aware of the
tough working conditions many face there, and that it will drive some to avoid
employment due to the unbearable pressure. I suspect there are many that are
simply just unmotivated to work, and have the means to do so.

>> and people will find all sorts of ways to justify their apparent lack of
motivation.

> Why should people have any motivation? Is it some kind of a moral duty?
> Don't you read that people can be angry, desperate and resentful about their
> economic situation?

This is where I see the issue. You have formed opinions which justify your
lack of motivation and project it onto others. Your situation might work for
you, but it does not work for everybody. Yet you do not understand this:

"I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong
to something so that society can function". I can't really express it. What
bothers me is that somehow, even after the new deal and social programs, not
having a salary or income is seen as some sort of a bad thing, and often, it
will be a bad thing for your mental health (isolation, lack of personal
goals)."

These social programs only function because others work. Their taxes pay for
your expenses. These welfare systems are designed for people who are unable to
find work, despite trying to find it. While there are some places trialling
basic income, until most of the western world moves to it (unlikely any time
soon), you are a burden to society. Now maybe in a few years, you will finish
making your game (i hope it goes well), and it will sell well, justifying your
unemployment. Until then many people will not understand your choice, and even
dislike you for it. As I said previously, it would be a different matter if
you quit your job to make your dream game. People can see you have a goal and
are motivated - that you don't intend to remain a burden.

>> then you are a burden

> That's the worse thing you can call an unemployed person. Not only am I not
> interacting with anybody, but now I should feel guilty for my situation? How
> do you want me to improve my situation if you accuse me? I don't really like
> to continue this kind of conversation, because it only deal with social
> constructs, which aren't really good standards.

If you are seeking work and unable to find it, then I agree, its not a good
thing to say to an unemployed person. However, I'm assuming you are unemployed
by choice. If you are isolated, you need to work on a social life. It is your
choice to be isolated. If you are actively trying to seek employment, then you
should absolutely not feel guilty.

~~~
jokoon
> and have the means to do so.

So what? Work is consented, not forced. If nobody wants to pay them better,
they won't work. If they have the means to work, but don't want to work,
what's the point of calling this a lack of motivation? It's basic supply and
demand at work. Maybe society has to find a better way to employ those people.
I think unemployment is sustainable. If you decide to work, you have more
money, but an unemployed person will still have enough to live.

> Their taxes pay for your expenses.

Money is just an indicator, but it doesn't explain structural phenomenons. If
you make abstraction of money, work is overrated. Automation removes a lot of
necessary work. Haven't you seen how less people are need to grow food?
Haven't you seen how many workers machines replace?

I'm now in a place of "discouraged unemployment". Meaning I had many
interviews and did not get hired. The more unemployment you have, the more
candidates will get discouraged to find a job. That's my situation currently.
I think labor and the socioeconomic model need to change. You can't tell
people to fit in a mold they don't like. Will a bank loan me money to work on
my game ?

Other details you might not know: France is currently in a roar because the
left government want to pass a law which is more liberal towards labor. France
is pretty conservative in term of economic policy (despite the fact that
welfare is generous). The fact is that in france, you literally CANNOT fire
someone if you want to, or it's VERY difficult to do so. That might be the
main reason people like me are in long term unemployment, and are refusing to
make new concessions. I already gave my resume to the city company who deals
with trash, and I got no answer. So in short, don't pretend you can advice
everybody to work in fast food. That will only get votes for candidates like
Sanders.

------
dreamfactory2
The UK used to have an unofficial version of UBI in the 70's and 80's when it
was feasible, if somewhat difficult, to mooch off the benefits system,
including getting reasonable low end accommodation. This had a kind of
freakonomics effect on the wider economy that we can see today.

It's how nearly all musicians, artists, designers, actors etc were surviving
during those decades and why they didn't end up abandoning their dreams to
office jobs.

That 'Withnail & I' existence certainly wasn't one that many others would
choose due to the low income and otherwise tawdry lifestyle, but it was
actually the engine for the big success story behind UK culture - which has
turned out to be one of its biggest exports and biggest draws.

The reason London is now seen at the world's coolest city where everybody
wants to come to study, live, invest, and set up shop is its cultural capital
and that can be traced back to the fact that all of the people running clubs,
fashion designers, and musicians etc were enabled off that benefits system.

------
jondubois
I like the idea of basic income but I don't like the idea of raising income
tax. I think capital gains tax should be raised and there should be a special
tax on passive income.

All Passive income sources are essentially small monopolies - If you own an
asset from which you derive passive income without having to work at all; the
dynamics of this are not so different from a corporation having a monopoly
over an industry. At the root, why should some people get paid for doing
nothing at all while others get nothing. Doing nothing should have the same
market value no matter who you are.

~~~
sunsu
Your idea is basically discouraging (and punishing) saving. You are completely
missing the fact that those "savings" are reinvested into the economy via
loans, credit, capital, etc.

~~~
mistermann
Agreed, but so are near zero (or effectively negative) percent interest rates
we've had for quite some time now, which coincidentally tends to benefit rent
seekers in the economy. Raising taxes on some forms of "passive" income seems
not that unreasonable under the current circumstances.

------
Theodores
Paul Mason is a very good television journalist although he has moved away
from the BBC to Channel 4. Good that he may be, I don't feel the urge to read
any of his books on how the post-Capitalist world is supposed to work out.

Recently in an old book shop I found a shelf full of ideas from around the dot
com era of how our post-whatever society was going to be. I feel that Paul
Mason's books are doomed to go to this same shelf of 'forgotten dreams'.

------
jpco
Sounds like it really wants to differentiate itself from the "old kind of
socialism", which has a heritage of thought which already contains a lot of
the things mentioned here.

And, as with most socialist thought, tends to kick up a lot of cries and moans
from the self-professed economists in the room.

~~~
youfunnypeople
>Sounds like it really wants to differentiate itself from the "old kind of
socialism"...

Technically he's right that UBI is not socialism; it's basically yet another
solution for rescuing capitalism from its inherent contradictions.

>And, as with most socialist thought, tends to kick up a lot of cries and
moans from the self-professed economists in the room.

I'm enjoying it mightily. You know you're getting close to the truth when
people with aspirations of domination try to attack your ideas.

