
The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks (2013) [pdf] - tacon
http://econ.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2013/05/pdf_paper_paul-beaudry-great-reversal.pdf
======
justinmk
It turns out that when you optimize for a specific statistic ("college
graduates!") irrespective of market forces, the market becomes distorted. This
happened in housing, and now education. Subsidized student loans (and other
programs) optimize for education _at any cost_ , so the costs of education are
not weighed by students proportionately to the benefits. This is an accounting
identity.

------
Johnythree
Once it was assumed that increased productivity would benefit the whole
community, hence the expectation that productivity would lead to higher wages
and/or reduced working hours.

But that hasn't happened:

In the American version of Capitalism, any benefits from increased
productivity flow direct to the super rich, leaving the poor and middle-class
worse off.

Meanwhile, the European semi-socialist model is also rapidly being subverted
by the American model.

~~~
eruditely
The super-rich seem much more concerned about the lives of the poor than the
poor for each other.

~~~
switchbak
Are you sure about that? I've seen exactly the opposite, that the richer you
are (typically), the less empathy you express. Bill Gates being a notable
counterexample.

Below a certain threshold, poverty is very damaging on a person, but
nonetheless, I've seen many instances of poor people sharing what little they
have.

This is all anecdotal of course, but there are studies showing an inverse
correlation of wealth to empathy.

~~~
eruditely
Go to a place where there is real poverty and it still holds(like india).
White rich people tend to care a lot about every one. I am not white.

------
rewqfdsa
Enact a 20-hour work week. Our machines are powerful enough now that we should
be able to devote our lives to human dignity, not work. Technology will only
turn our world into a Dickensian hellhole if we let it.

~~~
winter_blue
> Enact a 20-hour work week

"Enact" implies the government restricting everyone to working 20 hours per
week. That's a violation of our freedom to work as many hours as we want.

I do support you in that all of people shouldn't _have to_ work in order to
meet the basic needs of life today (food, housing, and connectivity).
Agricultural and industrial efficiency and automization has advanced to a
point where we can provide these basic needs to 90% of the populace with only
10% of people maintaining/operating these machines.

A lot of people will continue to work 50 or 60 hours, because a lot of humans
are naturally inclined to work. They derive pleasure and satisfaction from it.
I would myself personally continue working, perhaps even harder than I do now,
but would direct my efforts towards things that I enjoy more, and that are
potentially more impactful, meaningful, and beneficial to society. Ensuring
that everyone's basic needs are met would give people great personal freedom
to pursue what they want.

How would we implement this? One possible way is _basic income_ \-- although
it might be beneficial to incentivize productive and meaningful use of freedom
that basic income gives people. We don't want a country where 50% of the
population spends time watching soap operas, and eating junk food.

Just some of my thoughts...

~~~
nightski
I just can't get behind basic income. It makes sense from a very self-
motivated individual's point of view (which many/most on HN are) but if you
look at the majority of the country in my opinion most people are not driven
this way.

I really feel like we would end up with a country where the majority just live
on basic income and do nothing. At least now they must contribute to society
on a basic level to earn an income, even if it is unsatisfactory (welfare and
social programs aside).

~~~
raincom
> I really feel like we would end up with a country where the majority just
> live on basic income and do nothing.

The people who end up on "basic income" would do something they like to do;
but that something is nothing of value to the economic elite of the world. In
that sense, they do "nothing".

~~~
tbrownaw
_but that something is nothing of value to the economic elite of the world_

It has absolutely nothing to do with any "elite". It has to do with being
economically visible.

If the government pays 300M citizens each $25k annually, that's $7.5T that has
to come from _somewhere_.

If you play videogames all day, or turn your back yard into a decorative
garden, or anything else you don't get paid for, then you _are not
contributing_ to that $7.5T.

Which can kinda be a problem if too many people do that and there's nowhere
for it to come from.

~~~
candu
From [1], we already allocate roughly $6k per person per year in the US,
enough to fork over $25k/year to the poorest 20%. (This doesn't account for
the potential savings of reduced crime (prisons are expensive!), improved
health/nutrition, reduced administrative overhead of replacing all welfare
systems with a single basic income, etc.)

Also: not all value is neatly captured on a W-2 form. If turning my backyard
into a decorative garden allows me to set a higher sale price for my home
later, I've contributed. If I buy groceries so that I can play videogames all
day without falling over from hunger, I've contributed. (If I can pay in cash
instead of food stamps because I collect a basic income, even better: there's
less bureaucracy on the way to collecting tax on my purchases from the grocery
store.)

[2] notwithstanding, people who contribute _literally nothing_ to the economy
are extremely rare.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget)

[2]: [http://www.becomingminimalist.com/the-man-who-quit-money-
an-...](http://www.becomingminimalist.com/the-man-who-quit-money-an-interview-
with-daniel-suelo/)

~~~
nightski
If you hand out money to everyone, wouldn't prices just go up?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Only if you printed money to hand it out. If redistributive, no.

------
marvel_boy
_high-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun
to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers_

I dont know about USA but this paper describes exactly labour southern
european market

------
luisjgomez
Ah yes. Grand conclusions drawn from 20 data points. Economic science wins
again.

------
alexro
short version: software is eating the world

------
tsotha
None of this should come as a surprise. The powers that be looked at
employment statistics and decided if everyone had a college degree we'd all be
upper middle class and the toilets would clean themselves. But that's pushing
on a string - increasing the supply of "cognitive" workers without increasing
the demand just means there are going to be a whole lot of unemployed college
graduates.

------
hellbanner
A book about this:
[http://thelightsinthetunnel.com](http://thelightsinthetunnel.com)

------
riazrizvi
tldr; a surprising 2000 peak in white collar jobs is the reason for high
unemployment today + complex mathematical models of questionable importance
bury unclear economic assumptions.

------
uberdeveloper
Mediocre people are getting pushed out. This is a good thing for the
efficiency of the economy.

~~~
cubano
By definition, "mediocre people" make up approx. 66% of the workforce. We are
supposed to celebrate their inability to make a living?

~~~
tbrownaw
I thought "mediocre" was the middle _one_ third, rather than the middle two
thirds? ;)

~~~
rpcope1
Not sure if you're kidding, but GP is referring to area of the one-sigma
region around mean for a normal distribution (see: bell curve) in relation to
the total area (68ish percent of total), which is usually where the "normal"
people live. It seems the popular understanding in soft sciences is that
distribution of talent/ability/other human metric seems to follow a normal
distribution.

