[_0uto]

I see a lot of protestant mentality here in comments valuing any kind of even inhumane labour which does not allow to meet basic needs over not having a job, but also not suffering from hunger thanks to the social support system.

In my opinion, we as a society should aim to work less and less, collectively making use of automation and technological progress. But it will be hard when we label this as being lazy and not valuable member of society.

[dang]

> I see a lot of protestant mentality here

Please keep religious flamebait off this site. It leads to religious flamewars, which we seriously don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[_0uto]

I didn't mean to start religious discussion, rather used this term as in writings of Mark Weber (value of hard work etc.). This is more about set of principles that shaped Western and American societies, not really being related to religion anymore.

[dang]

Alas, it's still related enough to religion to easily lead to religious flamewars on the internet. The burden is on the commenter to pack the point in less flammable packaging. "Protestant mentality" is too generic a phrase not to have religious associations for many readers. If you said "Protestant work ethic" that would have been better, and if you had made it clear that you were referencing Weber, there would be no problem. Far fewer internet users are likely to start a flamewar against Weber.

[simple_phrases]

dang, please try to read charitably into the comments you choose to moderate. The concept of Protestant work ethic in the US is centuries old and is effectively divorced from any religious associations it might have had in the 1600's.

[dang]

It's not centuries old, but comes from Max Weber's surprisingly readable and brilliant book on the topic. But from a moderation perspective we have to look at effects, not intent. If you lead with a comment like that, the odds of somebody getting triggered—for whatever reason—and taking the thread into flamewar go way up. This is not a deep or very interesting point, it's just basic fire prevention.

[Frost1x]

Another issue is who owns these automation processes. If I used my vast financial resources to develop (i.e. pay people to develop) a new automation process, what rights do you have to my gains? Why should I share it with you?

This mentality and ownership really needs to be rethought.

[_0uto]

Imagine if all improvements over the course of history would be kept in secret for gains of owners of capital. Who own rights to the invention of an axe? Probably the first one who put a stone on a piece of wood. Should he has all rights for it forever? I couldn't really agree.

[ianai]

Which is why such property rights are supposed to fade with time. Corporate interests have just pushed that time frame to eternity in recent laws.

[sokoloff]

There’s a difference between having the right to the concept of an axe and having the right to my specific axe. I think GP was speaking more towards the latter.

[sneak]

It seems, sadly, that in software we have conflated the two. My specific iPhone is a brick without a government-recognized license for a copy of Apple’s sequence of numbers that instruct it.

[sokoloff]

You also didn’t make the phone. Apple did and sold it to you under certain arms-length terms, presumably terms that both sides were willing to accept.

That’s quite a bit more acceptable to me than someone deciding that Apple’s phones should be theirs because reasons.

[bsanr2]

You're making a lot of assumptions about ownership. "Your" vast financial resources are just measures of debt (money is not personal property) secured by the government. We can always collectively decide that what you did to accrue that owed debt was not worth its valuation and take steps (e.g., taxation) to correct. "Your" automation process is built on publicly-funded research and using publicly-funded resources; the public can decide to recoup its investment, and whatever else it needs to secure its mission of providing for the general welfare.

Feudalism is over, dude. You're connected. You're beholden.

[bilbo0s]

You have to wonder why we don't just tax a little more? Do we have plenty of resources already and we just don't give it to the people struggling who need it? Or do we really not have resources to help the overworked underpaid masses out here in opioid infested flyover country? If we don't have enough resources, why not tax a bit more to get the resources? If we do have the resources, why are we not helping these people out more?

Sometimes it's just baffling how everyone can see an obvious problem and no one moves to try to at least ameliorate it. Not even asking that it be completely solved, just try to make things a little better for those people.

[fiter]

This line of thinking ("we can tax you however we like") is backdrop of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. In the book, the creatives/creators go on strike rather than suffer the taxes. Whatever you believe about the reality of that story, successful tax collection is a negotiation, not a diktat. It's probably best to have everyone believe in taxes, so it's important to have a discussion around it.

[bsanr2]

The feasability of the circumstances described in AS aren't a triviality, they're the crux of your argument. Tax collection has been unsuccessful even with the fig leaf of "negotiation"; what's better is to have everyone believe in what happens if you don't pay your taxes.

Generally-speaking, I'm betting that the wealthy would rather live in a world where they still have essentially unfettered freedom of movement and resource access with slightly less collective wealth, than one in which they have to hold back their gifts and always have to be looking over their shoulder.

[frostburg]

You having vast financial resources depends on the rest of society agreeing, otherwise what you have are numbers on a server somewhere and an angry mob around your house.

[8bitsrule]

Exactly. The definition of 'employment' is the crux of the matter. Is a 30-hour week at minimum wage with no retirement or health 'employment'? Were serfs of feudal lords 'employed'? Is someone making valuable contributions without wage or recognition 'employed'? Are those serving the poor voluntarily 'employed'?

The term is mechanical, reductionist, and carelessly 'employed'.

[paulpauper]

there is a catch though: automation and technology is not free , but there a high overhead cost that many businesses cannot afford. Also, may low skilled jobs cannot be automated.

[alpineidyll3]

Conservative perspectives often involve some sort of built-in need to proselytize, because they view life as a triumph of ego over intrinsic human weakness. There's an idea that all people need to hear the message of personal responsibility.

Sadly data is weaker than any bias of perspectives, and people find it impossible to think causally without some larger brittle philosophical framework.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads further in generic ideological directions. It leads to generic ideological flamewar, which is tedious and which we don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[toomuchtodo]

Most unfortunately you can change the minds of some, but others you have to wait for them to die. Progress occurs one funeral at a time.

[allovernow]

>Conservative perspectives often involve some sort of built-in need to proselytize, because they view life as a triumph of ego over intrinsic human weakness. There's an idea that all people need to hear the message of personal responsibility.

If we're reducing political parties to extreme stereotypes, then perhaps the pressure of the distant right is an appropriate counter to the pressure from the distant left which encourages hedonism and infantilism well into adulthood, shuffling responsibility onto the magical collective to solve problems.

And in this way society isn't totally lost, on average, if it exists somewhere in the middle.

[alpineidyll3]

I do not find liberal philosophy more accurate. On almost every issue one can make reasonable evidentiary arguments for either perspective. The problem is people can't even make policy decisions on the basis of controlled statistics and the experimental method (when that's possible).

I just think that conservative thinking lends itself to an evangelical mindset, while liberals tend to view their philosophy as inevitable. Often they are content to wait for people to evolve to their level. Hillary's inaction in the previous campaign is a perfect example of that mindset.

[RestlessMind]

> In my opinion, we as a society should aim to work less and less, collectively making use of automation and technological progress. But it will be hard when we label this as being lazy and not valuable member of society.

If the society had taken this view in 1950 and encouraged "laziness", then we wouldn't[1] have had as much technological progress since then. It would probably have created a great lifestyle for 1950's people. It is indeed a great question to ponder - do we want to optimize social setup for today's population or for future generations to come?

[1] I also think low-wage jobs are sometime essential to move the society forward, Uber being a good example. Taxi-based system was horrible in the US. Uber used a lot of low-paid workers to shake the status quo and the situation has improved remarkably since then. I don't think the solution offered by Uber is perfect and the setup should be improved further, but simple improvements like hailing a cab via an app, credit card payments or driver/passenger ratings were inconceivable with the taxi system (again, in the US). That progress might not have been possible in a system with UBI because no one would have driven for Uber for low wages. Again, presence of UBI would have certainly helped Uber drivers a lot but collective society would have been stuck with a shitty taxi-based system.

[thinkingkong]

Thats total nonsense. Technological progress and capitalism are intertwined, but we didn’t achieve advancements because of the pure necessity to put food on the table or simply “work hard”. Weve advanced enough so we can provide the same basic needs like food and healthcare to everyone, just like everyone can now entertain themselves or travel anywhere in the world.