
What if jobs are not the solution but the problem? - rbanffy
https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-jobs-are-not-the-solution-but-the-problem?s=MH
======
cbanek
"How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without
working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it
ethical?"

What about retirement? social security? disability? You might not be "making a
living", but you are getting an income without working for it. Same for
investing money. Really "working for it" is a loaded term in and of itself.
You might be "working for it" by taking risk, or putting in labor. The author
obviously doesn't think any investor is "working for it" by the the tone of
the article, but this is precisely what retired america is doing?

"If you were raised to believe that work is the index of your value to society
– as most of us were – would it feel like cheating to get something for
nothing?"

I don't think this is the right question at all. People take for granted
whatever they have, and likely may feel it's cheating, until they start taking
it for granted.

I think the more interesting question is, if you could live even if society
didn't value what you were doing, and you could do anything (even nothing) and
still be provided with everything you need to survive - what would happen to
individuals and what would happen to society?

People by nature I think are very externally motivated (society, wealth,
materialism), and if you didn't make people go to work, would they? If they
did, would they still put up with the crappy parts of it?

I think what defines a satisfied life is doing things that matter to you, make
yourself work, try hard, think, make yourself smile a few years down the road
(after you've forgotten the hard parts). But even when you have all the
opportunity in the world, some people just procrastinate or fall off the wagon
somewhere...

~~~
freeflight
>The author obviously doesn't think any investor is "working for it" by the
the tone of the article, but this is precisely what retired america is doing?

Because it ain't the investor who's working there it's the capital or isn't
that how the saying goes?

>People by nature I think are very externally motivated (society, wealth,
materialism), and if you didn't make people go to work, would they? If they
did, would they still put up with the crappy parts of it?

People by nature are also very diverse characters and as such can't be
generalized in such a way. Some people need external motivation to live,
others see living itself as motivation enough and loathe a high octane
lifestyle focused on chasing some external motivation in the form of
fulfilling arbitrary productivity quotas to measure their "progress in life".

>I think what defines a satisfied life is doing things that matter to you,
make yourself work, try hard, think, make yourself smile a few years down the
road (after you've forgotten the hard parts).

Which assumes there's a "happy ending" if said person just "puts in the work",
sorry but that's not how reality works at all. You can endure all you want,
put in all the work you want and life can still screw you over big time like
it does for, the majority of, people on this planet every single day.

If "hard work" is all it would take then we'd be long there, wherever "there"
is supposed to be anyway. Because I doubt that out of billions of people
working the large majority are simply "slacking it" and "too lazy" to all
become successful millionaires, it's far more to do with lack of opportunity
and not lack of motivation.

~~~
cbanek
> People by nature are also very diverse characters and as such can't be
> generalized in such a way. Some people need external motivation to live,
> others see living itself as motivation enough and loathe a high octane
> lifestyle focused on chasing some external motivation in the form of
> fulfilling arbitrary productivity quotas to measure their "progress in
> life".

Of course, this is part of our culture. I don't mean to generalize that all
people are hugely driven, but that everyone pretty much has a base line level
of external motivation in that we need shelter, food, etc. While not everyone
likes a high octane atmosphere (and I wasn't implying they do), suddenly being
able to do nothing is not typically a situation most people find themselves
in. There's usually school, or a job, or something.

There's a definite link between what we do, and our identity and how we see
ourselves, and our value. It's easy for people to get depressed and isolated
when they do nothing. It's easier for negative habits to set in with fewer
checks.

As for a "happy ending," we all have the same ending - we die. I think it's
not so bad, personally. I meant this more like Warren Buffett's "internal
scorecard". There have been studies about what people regret most when they
are old, and most of those are losing touch with friends, and regretting not
doing things when they had the chance. I wonder how that would change if we
were challenged less. Or would we simply challenge ourselves more? (I hope the
latter)

And just like you think that "there" would be a millionaire, I say it's just
being at the end of life, and not having too many regrets.

~~~
freeflight
>suddenly being able to do nothing is not typically a situation most people
find themselves in

And when people do find themselves in that situation they have everybody and
the world yelling at them to do something "useful" with their time because as
you say this has a lot to do with culture. Maybe doing nothing is perfectly
fine? I don't see other animals constantly hustling to look "busy" for the
sake of looking busy. Let's also keep in mind that most people usually don't
just "do nothing", if they have an actual choice then they tend to do things
they enjoy which is at least something.

>There's a definite link between what we do, and our identity and how we see
ourselves, and our value. It's easy for people to get depressed and isolated
when they do nothing. It's easier for negative habits to set in with fewer
checks.

Of course, there is and it is a very simple link: People often excel at the
things they enjoy doing, force them to perform tasks they don't enjoy/see a
purpose in and you usually make people miserable regardless of the monetary
compensation they receive.

That's the only way work functions as a "check" to keep people happy if they
see an actual purpose/value in it and don't experience it as "working for
work's sake" because that might just as well be considered crypto-slavery. In
2013 David Graeber wrote a pretty good piece about this Phenomenon calling it
"bullshit jobs" [0].

>And just like you think that "there" would be a millionaire, I say it's just
being at the end of life, and not having too many regrets.

Sorry I might have misunderstood your point there because I interpreted that
part as the usual "American dream" story of "everybody can do it if they just
put in the work" which I consider BS not just in the US but pretty much
everywhere.

>I wonder how that would change if we were challenged less. Or would we simply
challenge ourselves more?

Keeping up in the rat race takes a lot of time and energy that's why (imho)
many people would challenge themselves more once they are freed up from
cultural expectations aka the challenges forced on them by society.

[0][http://web.archive.org/web/20130818200653/http://strikemag.o...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130818200653/http://strikemag.org/bullshit-
jobs/)

------
madamelic
These articles always bother me.

The content is usually alright but they always have the tone of a petulant
college student.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it but no need to start writing
Communist Manifesto 2.0 when all you need to say is "Robots are going to
replace us, jobs are going to go away and we need basic income".

Like, for the time being, non-coal miner, educated jobs are doing fine. There
is no need to be a "gangster" to live a comfortable life.

What I am trying to say is the hyperbole in these kinds of articles put me off
and paint the author as immature, kneejerk-y and unknowledgable.

~~~
vlasev
It's a curious fact then that the author is James Livingston, a 67-year old
professor of history at Rutgers, who has also written numerous books.

> all you need to say is "Robots are going to replace us, jobs are going to go
> away and we need basic income"

Each of these points would need to be expanded upon for this to work. A lot of
people don't believe that robots are going to replace us, or that jobs are
going to go away, or that we need basic income. Also, there are a ton of
issues with the process involved in this transition. How big of a change? How
fast? How disruptive?

~~~
khedoros1
> It's a curious fact then that the author is James Livingston, a 67-year old
> professor of history at Rutgers, who has also written numerous books.

Someone can be all these things and still write something in a grating tone.

------
RickS
>These beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous,
because there’s not enough work to go around, and what there is of it won’t
pay the bills

I've turned down like 40 candidates lately for a job that pays at least 80k.

It's hard as hell to find someone who is both knowledgeable and personable.

The word "shortage" pops up often in these types of conversations, but the
word I'd prefer is "mismatch". Me and the people I know are hiring
aggressively, all the time, for people who know about engineering, product
design, data analysis, etc.

There are lots of jobs. Most of the people you walk past on the street just
don't know how to do them.

> unless of course you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street
> banker, becoming a gangster either way.

I think this kind of thing is defeatist and intellectually dishonest. In a
roundabout way, it says "I have trouble finding work, and I'm a good person,
so all the people with work must be bad people"

We've gotta stop otherizing successful IC-type employees and start training
people to switch into those fields late stage (the current tech talent pool is
overwhelmingly people who started early and stayed on board)

The article goes on to talk about things unrelated to this comment, but it
really started off on the wrong foot, IMO, by needlessly polarizing a complex
situation and dismissing the abundant existence of genuinely good, chronically
underfilled positions.

edit: the article also bases some numbers on "official unemployment". I'm not
an expert on this topic but I've heard that number to be somewhat deceiving,
in part because it fails to count 1) people who have some work (like a few
shifts at a retail store) but would like to be employed more of the time and
2) people who have given up actively searching for work.

edit 2:

> profits are pointless except as a way of announcing to your stockholders
> (and hostile takeover specialists) that your company is a going concern, a
> thriving business. You don’t need profits to ‘reinvest’, to finance the
> expansion of your company’s workforce or output, as the recent history of
> Apple and most other corporations has amply demonstrated.

whoa. can't just... brush past that one. That paragraph is not followed up on
robustly. I'm interested in entertaining the thought, but you can't just drop
that pill and expect me to swallow it.

~~~
pmorici
80k is not a lot of money if you are talking about any of the major metro
areas in the US. In fact is it definitely entry level as far as engineering
salaries go. if you are in SF or NY it's laughably low. You haven't said the
exact details of the job you are advertising but you probably aren't paying
enough that is why you are getting bad candidates.

~~~
exclusiv
In SF and NYC that 80k is laughably low because it's expensive to live but
also because companies there are abusing young engineers and getting 60+ hrs
per week in many cases. I have a senior engineer I pay 130k for 40 hours of
work. He tries to bring me salaries of some of his friends that get paid more
and I ask him how many hours do they do? 130k@40 hrs is 162k@50 hrs if you
value your time. I always negotiate based on desired work load. Tech jobs
should really be more clear about hourly expectations for the given salary.

~~~
pmorici
Hey if that argument works for you more power to you. I'm not talking about
jobs with inflated work hour expectations though. You just happen to have
lucked out and found an engineer who both has the skills you want and hasn't
figured out the salary game yet. I'm guessing you would react differently if
they brought you an actual offer from another company instead of anecdotes
about what their friends make.

~~~
galdosdi
Eh, it depends. Odds are you're right IMHO, but it's quite possible exclusiv
is honest and really does run a shop that has an unusually good work-life
balance.

OTOH my experience is that pay and hours expectations are orthogonal in the
software/IT industry! Like, meaning you can find jobs that pay low and expect
low hours, jobs that pay low and expect high hours, jobs that pay high and
expect low hours, and jobs that pay high and expect high hours, and all points
in between. If only it were easy to tell at the interview stage, you know
which one I'd try to get, but it's hard to really know what a company is like
till you're there -- and different teams/depts at the same company can have
wildly different situations.

~~~
exclusiv
I wouldn't have high retention if I didn't have the approach I outlined. The
market is frothy. I ask all candidates what they prefer regarding hours so
we're all on the same page from the get go. If you want to put in 60 and get
compensated for it then I'll negotiate based on that. Most employees stick to
40 and Fridays are super light. Most work from home at least 2 days per week
too. I'm exploring doing 32 hrs for new roles.

When I interviewed personally I always asked what the hours expectation was
because I knew the game as I had been abused before. So I'd try to ask
employees at a prospective company to get the real scoop if possible. It's
dishonest to demand crazy hours and not compensate. It also leads to high
attrition and I'm not in business to spend time replacing people and risking
losing clients over it.

------
exclusiv
> so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment

> It means that profits are pointless except as a way of announcing to your
> stockholders (and hostile takeover specialists) that your company is a going
> concern, a thriving business. You don’t need profits to ‘reinvest’, to
> finance the expansion of your company’s workforce or output

What is he talking about? Higher taxes prevent business owners from hiring
more people and from being able to offer decent wage growth. Lower profits de-
incentivize companies from taking the risk of starting and running a business
and having employees.

80% of small businesses had NO employees. Incentivizing these 23M businesses
to hire just 1 person would be dramatic.

Small businesses accounted for 63.3% of net new jobs from the third quarter of
1992 until the third quarter of 2013. [1]

This article acts as if Apple and other mega-corps ARE the economy.

Raising taxes is counter intuitive if we want to create more jobs, especially
those that will be more rewarding to people.

[1] [https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-
FAQ-2016...](https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-
FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf)

~~~
hxta98596
> What is he talking about?

What are you talking about?

> Higher taxes prevent business owners from hiring more people and from being
> able to offer decent wage growth.

No. I'm not in favor of high taxes but this statement is not supported at a
theory level nor empirically. For one thing, employees and wages are pre-tax.
Basically this type of labor economics stuff really should focus on the
"elephant in the office": either an employee creates more _profit_ than they
cost or they do not. Tax levels make minimal difference here, if at all, even
worse is tax topics get easily politicized, used to manipulate and distract
from the real labor issues worth studying and discussing.

Also, the small business statistics you mention are misleading. I'm sure it
was not on purpose but to be clear: That is 80% of ALL businesses are
nonemployer (not 80% of small businesses). Does that feel right? 80% of
businesses are one person businesses? Feels high, no? What percentage of
people living around you are in this group?

The figure is misleading because the "23 million small businesses" counted to
get 80% are not all real businesses, relatively few are. _23 million is based
on the number of business tax returns filed not the number of proper going
concern business businesses. There is a difference._ Millions of those 23M
business tax returns do not represent a "business" in the sense of an entity
that would or could support hiring of an employee - it's not that type of
business nor trying to be. There are various reasons for a business tax return
to be filed by someone or group, including the obvious tax benefits offered
right now today for small businesses. "Home office" deduction anyone? I think
a business that generates somewhere around $1000 must file taxes for it but a
"business" that earns nothing might also still file and be counted...

But I do agree with you 100% how small businesses are crucial to this country
and they need support, legal and economic support, and they need to be able to
hire new people and offer apprenticeships and compete locally and globally.
Unfortunately the trend is going against this.

Also here is a pew link with related info from a different angle:
[http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/10/22/three-in-ten-u-
s-j...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/10/22/three-in-ten-u-s-jobs-are-
held-by-the-self-employed-and-the-workers-they-hire/)

~~~
exclusiv
If taxes were 100% what would happen? Businesses would turn into non-profit
slaves. It may not be linear but suggesting higher taxes have no impact on
hiring or wage growth is naive.

I personally have a guarantee for 400k on a line of credit, 20+ employees and
when we have low profit years I ask if its even worth it. I can make close to
the same as an independent consultant and have a lot less to worry about. Yes,
taxes are on profits, but you simply don't hire when profits are low. You try
to extract more from what you have and utilize contractors to fill in.

> either an employee creates more profit than they cost or they do not

Some employees are necessary to run the business and are not on the revenue
side. When profit is low you try not to hire non-revenue employees and you
might let some go. Business owners are in it to make money. If the government
takes more of the profits - there's both less cash available in the bank to
reinvest after you cover your liability and there's less incentive to run a
business. Nobody gets any salary bumps when profit is low. Our problem is not
employment but lack of any wage growth, esp. as debt and expenses like housing
and education have skyrocketed.

> Millions of those 23M business tax returns do not represent a "business" in
> the sense of an entity that would or could support hiring of an employee -
> it's not that type of business nor trying to be

But millions do. Also - "not trying to hire" is also partially based in the
unfriendliness that comes along with running small business with employees.

> 80% of businesses are one person businesses? Feels high, no? What percentage
> of people living around you are in this group?

That 80% is of small businesses, not all businesses. But no it doesn't feel
high. And it doesn't say one person businesses. An LLC can have several
members but no employees. That number doesn't feel off to me. We're talking
about real estate agents, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, hairdressers,
barbers, interior designers, independent software engineers and other
technical consultants, etc. Each occupation has 200-600k people.

You're downplaying the 23M, but can you agree there's millions to activate? We
also don't need to activate them to hire full-time. If they hire part-time
that's a huge win too. Many of these businesses have a lot of apprenticeship
to offer and are jobs that are rewarding because you accomplish something
every day.

I know countless people and small partnerships making 150k-1M that have no
employees. This includes blue and white collar occupations. When I talk with
them about expanding their business and hiring - they're mostly just scared of
making that commitment because they think it will be too much of a headache.
And it is a headache and a lot of risk. Some states are worse than others.

~~~
hxta98596
I found this comment unfortunate, I'd prefer not to debate like this. I wish
you a lot of success with your business, I'm rooting for you, and us, and all
small businesses.

Some websites I use to check facts and numbers:

[https://www.census.gov/en.html](https://www.census.gov/en.html)

[https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtm...](https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml)

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/)

[https://www.bls.gov/](https://www.bls.gov/)

~~~
exclusiv
I'm familiar with most of those resources. Do any of them support your claim
that tax levels make no impact on hiring or wage growth? Separately, since
we're exchanging data source recommendations, I'd also suggest looking at non-
government provided data sources when researching things like the impact of
higher taxes. :)

Ask any business owner how doubling taxes would affect their decisions on
hiring, providing bonuses or bumping their employees salaries after they wrap
up their fiscal year with lower net profit and less cash available in the
bank.

You made general statements like "relatively few are (real businesses)" when
the latest SBA report shows 5.8 M with employees. Regardless of how many are
real businesses or not, 63% of net new jobs came from them. Your Pew study
says "The likelihood that a self-employed worker will hire other workers has
diminished over time" which supports my case that it's become less attractive
to hire and we should enact policies to incentivize new hires because we're
losing a good source of new jobs. I'm not disputing that the majority of the
~20M nonemployers aren't likely to hire, but we're still talking about
millions we can activate that have never hired and 5.8 M that could make more
hires with the right policies.

You disputed the fact that 80% of ALL businesses had no employees. The SBA
report states that small businesses comprise of 99.9% of all firms so yes your
slight misquote is effectively true - 80% of businesses are nonemployers. I
laid out a bunch of occupations each with a range of numbers. For just one
occupation, electricians - there are 628,800
([https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-
extraction/electric...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-
extraction/electricians.htm)) Carpenters = 945,400. Not all are registered
businesses of course but there's a meaningful chunk that could hire either
full time or part time. Anyway - I have no reason to doubt that 80% of
small/all businesses counted by the SBA have no employees. That's about 23M
people, excluding those small businesses with partners and no employees.
Completely believable.

There are a few things preventing the capable nonemployers from hiring:

"Two of the business characteristics that correlated with an increased
likelihood of hiring a first employee were the availability of assets and
incorporation." [1] Assets go down with higher taxes.

"Non-employers who received entrepreneurial training were more likely to add a
first employee than those who did not." [1]. Small sample size but makes
sense. Most nonemployers try to do everything and need to understand how to
offload low value tasks so they can focus on high value tasks to grow their
business.

Regarding tax implications, here's just one study from The Hartford:

"If taxes rise further, the majority (66 percent) of small-business owners
plan to deal with it by passing the added costs on to their customers. More
than half (58 percent) will postpone plans to expand their businesses, 55
percent will cut back on personal investments in their companies and 54
percent will institute a hiring freeze. Just 28 percent plan to cut back on
existing staff." [2]

From the 2015 study - "small business owners are most concerned that
healthcare reform and tax reform will impact the cost of running their
business." [3] and 37% say taxes present a major risk to their business.

[1] [https://www.sba.gov/content/crossing-employer-threshold-
dete...](https://www.sba.gov/content/crossing-employer-threshold-determinants-
firms-hiring-their-first-employee)

[2] [https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-
business/openforum/...](https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-
business/openforum/articles/how-would-tax-increases-affect-your-small-
business/) (2012)

[3]
[https://www.thehartford.com/sites/the_hartford/files/executi...](https://www.thehartford.com/sites/the_hartford/files/executive-
summary-2015-sbss.pdf) (2015)

------
thr0waway1239
I am not so sure about basic income, there is already a massive section of
society which receives it. I am talking about children, of course. And there
is a reason they are provided with that basic income - they are not yet ready
to be "net producers". If someone proposes a scheme for basic income, they
should also add some checks and balances to make sure people don't turn into
net consumers. Just as you wouldn't want your society run by kids who are 16
years or less, you don't want the majority of voters/adult participants to be
indistinguishable from children. If being "treated like children" is actually
a desirable state, why do most people feel chafed by the thought?

But I am also curious about the contributions of factors other than automation
which prevents people from being net producers. For e.g. what is the role of
inflation (a moderate pace of deflation will allow people to make do with
less, get off the treadmill faster, and also make part-time work much more
feasible)?

~~~
PeterisP
Your argument would be valid in 1950 (or 1650) but it does not apply for 2050.
This whole discussion is initiated by the fact that due to changing
circumstances, many adults _MUST_ be "net consumers" in your terms, that's
unavoidable, and the only question is how do we handle it ?

In the coming decades, we're facing millions and millions of people for whom
the market price of their labor will be lower than the market price of their
bare sustenance. We're not there yet, and especially not worldwide, but that's
where the trends are pointing so we're discussing it to have a perspective of
what needs to be done in the future. There's no "checks and balances" possible
- they _will_ be net consumers if they are alive.

Already there are massive industries (e.g. garment and footwear manufacturing)
which are not automated only because _for now_ e.g. offshore sweatshop labor
for handful of rice a day is cheaper than doing it with robots - but it's
_changing_ as automation is becoming cheaper over time.

So that is the big question, what will we do with the growing number people
for whom the society has no _economical_ need, who must be net consumers - and
there really are only two options, either the society transfers resources so
that they can live a reasonable life, or it does not, and they do not live a
reasonable life.

------
influnza
If we have full automation of basic needs fulfillment, powered by sun and
carried out by robots, then everyone has more time to have fun. The definition
of fun will adapt. Probably get on a new planet and die fighting local fauna
will be what people will resort to. Why not? Society will keep supporting
individuals, especially when people with the same interests will be
discoverable so easily. Sounds like heaven to me. Humanity can do it! Don't
forget that mentality will keep evolving

~~~
marcus_holmes
It turns out we'd have more time to be depressed.

If you hand the necessities of life to humans with no effort required, we get
weird.

It's not that "work builds character" or any of that bull, just that humans
don't do well when dependent on others. We need some sense of accomplishment
and achievement. We may, in time, be able to separate these things from "work"
and "putting bread on the table", but it'll take a generation of messed-up
people first.

~~~
qbiuvvdqbiu
initially I felt the same: if one didn't have to work then all meaning to life
would disappear, since most people's raison-d'être is to be useful to other
people.

Then I thought, actually we've already moved from hunter-gatherer to farmer to
consumer, all our basic needs already cost us much less energy and time than
they did thousands of years ago. And yet we all still work, it's just most of
the work is made-up.

All we need to do as the trend continues is invent more meaningful made-up
work

~~~
marcus_holmes
I'm a huge Iain M Banks fan, and yearn to live in The Culture. He tackles some
of these issues there, especially in Player of Games - the protagonist's
attitude to game-playing resembles our attitudes to work.

But I don't think we can get there without going through a generation of pain
and misery as we adjust.

------
em3rgent0rdr
The problem with automation nowadays is not that it takes away jobs. The
problem is that society is not allowing automation to take away _more_ jobs.
Number of "jobs" shouldn't be the metric to measure success.

------
MR4D
There is so much wrong with this article that I'll only address one part.

Taxing companies is illogical (ignoring that they are generally easier for
politicians to tax than individuals, but that's another topic).

For instance, companies can only do four things with their profits:

1 - pay employees more

2 - pay shareholders more

3 - build/buy more (what is usually called reinvesting or R&D, but can also
mean buying thicker carpets and nicer offices)

4 - build up cash (which eventually will be used to do one of the above 3
items)

Increasing taxes on companies only can reduce those 4 things. How a person can
conceive that taxing them more has no impact is beyond me. In each instance
there is a person that can be taxed at the end of the chain. So why do it
twice?

Taxing companies merely distorts markets (witness all the money AAPL & GOOD
put thru Ireland, or how GE pays so little taxes, but has armies of lawyers
who do nothing but ensure money is moved to places in ways it cannot be
taxed).

The author ignores reality and the many examples (I cited only 3) that
disprove him in the hear and now.

His question is good - indeed, very important - but his answer is not only
bad, but also misleading and incorrect.

~~~
clairity
i'll just address one part of your argument: do you know which of those items
are taxed and which are not, and under which circumstances they are taxed?
consulting an accounting text might help here (hint: some for sure, but all of
them potentially can be tax free).

livingston's corporate tax argument is actually pretty sound. he says raising
corporate taxes

(1) won't disincentive corporate job creation because corporations have long
had a negligible impact on job growth, and

(2) won't drive corporations overseas because they've long been majority
overseas companies already and the percentage has held fairly steady over
time.

since corporations are people (and in some cases, more than people), let's tax
them at the same rates as people. they won't be going anywhere and maybe we
can build some infrastructure with the money raised and actually employ some
real people while we're at it.

~~~
MR4D
I don't need to consult an accounting text because I run a company and have to
deal with it in real life. If you want obscure tax information that a fortune
100 company deals with then you'd have to go past an accounting text and into
tax law anyway.

For instance, companies like mine have to deal with dumb depreciation laws,
which distort my buying decisions occasionally so that I don't have to
depreciate equipment over some number of years. Let me just buy it and expense
it - don't force me to write it off on a timeline that the govt. prefers. For
instance, computers in the 1990's frequently were updated by companies every
24 months. Now it's probably twice that. Did the tax law change with it? No.
And that's a distortion because it forces companies to either do something
different than they otherwise would, or report something different than
actions would suggest.

To address #2 in particular, CNN disagrees:
[http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-
advantage-i...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-
inversion/) Livingston can say all he wants, it doesn't mean he's right.

I'll side with the hard facts instead of his argument, because his argument is
not sound, and the facts are against him.

If you don't believe me or CNN, then go talk with business owners - you'll
find a wide range of opinions, but the majority will disagree with Livingston.

------
xg15
What I've seldomly seen discussed so far is how exactly access and
participation would be handled in a jobless world. Currently work (ideally)
offers you the chance to influence the world, gain expert knowledge, access to
areas closed off for the broad public.

The article briefly touches or by mentioning work "builds character" but
doesn't discuss the consequences if those things are not available anymore or
how we could keep them available.

I have a sort of fear that a world where everything is automated could start
off as a paradise - but over time more and more areas could become "off-
limits" for 99% of the population, since they are not needed and would just
disturb operation - until in the end they have lots of leisure time (hooray)
but few things to actually do except meaningless hobbies.

------
jhoechtl
Full employment, if it simultaneously means having a job which pays your
living, is a solution to the problem as it also contributes to redistribution
of wealth. If the job market is supply driven (ie. the workforce has more
power to determine the conditions) the market is required to make it more
favorable for the workforce as otherwise the workforce will not work at all.

So far the theory. However, as more and more jobs become replaced my machines
and robots which do not pay social taxes, there is no money to redistribute
and the labor market will be supply driven by those who create the jobs.

------
contingencies
The _Future of Employment_ paper referenced considers chefs highly unlikely
(0.1 probability) to be automated. However, we are working on that at
[http://8-food.com/](http://8-food.com/) at least for certain classes of meal
preparation. Another questionably 'safe' category of employment is travel
guides (0.057 probability) though the number and quality of geospatial city
guide mobile offerings is increasing rapidly.

------
crdoconnor
"These beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous,
because there’s not enough work to go around"

Not enough jobs != not enough work. It's easy to reduce the number of jobs,
simply accumulate all the money in one place and don't spend it.

It puzzles me why people think that humanity has somehow just run out of
things to do for one another. Just world fallacy?

------
johnnyg
Capitalism works so well and abstracts away so much that articles like this
can be written.

~~~
pvnick
It's not capitalism that pays for the author's salary - it's the state (he is
a professor at a public university)

~~~
merpnderp
A state funded by capitalism.

~~~
Can_Not
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism)

~~~
merpnderp
Is that also your answer to S. Korea, Singapore, Japan, China's mind boggling
explosion into prosperity, Chile, the western parts of Europe nearly
completely destroyed by war, etc etc ad nauseam for every country that
embraces free trade? No shocker that the poorest continent is also the one
with the least amount of free trade policies - Africa.

China's explosive growth in standard of living, bringing a billion people out
of extreme poverty just 20 years after changing their economy to one based on
free markets - American Imperialism?

------
avmich
> the net gain in jobs since 2000 still stands at zero

Reads surprising to me. The population of US rose since 2000, so to have net
gain zero the employment ratio has to fall compared to 2000 - but it's pretty
high today. Hm?

~~~
PeterisP
There has been something like a 10% increase in the total number of employed
people since 2000, but employment ratio (labor force participation rate) _has_
significantly fallen since that, it used to be 67% and is ~62% now.

------
rl3
> _25 November, 2016_

Title should be updated accordingly.

------
ManlyBread
A lot of complaining in the article, but no viable alternatives to working.

------
pvnick
This article is garbage. Feels like the author pulled up a chair, sat in it
backwards to seem hip, then laid down some "real talk, kids."

The author is a professor at a state college. Which means taxes pay for him to
think up such nonsense.

~~~
Nomentatus
The author cites and answers many possible objections. You either have
objections he doesn't mention, but don't wish to share with the class; or have
better counterarguments which you don't wish to share with the class.

Mere gainsaying is not a contribution to any discussion.

As for style - I'm interested in the substance, he didn't go full on Platonian
dialectic so consider yourself blessed I suppose.

------
programmarchy
The author's Luddism doesn't bother me as much as his communism. Luddism has a
history of being wrong, but not as 100-millions-dead wrong as communism.

How can this professor call himself a historian with a straight face?

I'm sick of tax dollars funding this postmodern bilge -- opining from ivory
towers, appealing to emotions, and fomenting divisions between class and race.

According to a recent report by the ITIF: "Contrary to popular perceptions,
the labor market is not experiencing unprecedented technological disruption.
In fact, occupational churn in the United States is at a historic low."

There is an enormous opportunity for increased productivity and wealth, and if
history is any indicator there will be plenty of work to be done.

[1] [https://itif.org/publications/2017/05/08/false-alarmism-
tech...](https://itif.org/publications/2017/05/08/false-alarmism-
technological-disruption-and-us-labor-market-1850-2015)

~~~
labster
I didn't see any Luddism in this article. Marxism, for sure, but no Luddism.
Saying that a future society must have different values from the present due
to the nature of progress is futurism if anything.

