[zackmorris]

I think this is a perfect example of how money today is worth more or less than it actually is. Another way of saying that is that money is nonlinear or even non-constant.

For example, say you are broke and wandering the streets of a big city and really want to buy a bus ticket to another city for $20 or whatever. No matter how much your net worth is, you can't get that $20 easily. You could try asking various businesses to do some work for cash, you could try a song and dance routine, etc, but your choices all amount to various forms of begging.

Meanwhile you can be sitting in an office somewhere and make that money in less than 3 hours even at minimum wage, even if you do little or no work. You can even sell something on craigslist if you’re home. I suppose in desperation you could sell blood plasma, but that’s one of very few lifelines.

Nobody thinks $20 is worth much, but when you don’t have it, it’s very expensive indeed.

To me, the root of the problem is whether you are resource rich or resource poor. So the web, by virtue of being intangible, is almost quintessentially resourceless. The trend seems to be lower and lower wages for increasingly onerous labor. In other words, if you have money, you get a real world return greater than the value of your money. But if you don’t have money, then getting it requires an expenditure of resources and effort larger than the value of the money itself.

At some point in the near future, acquiring money will be so expensive from a labor standpoint that it will be cheaper to simply do things yourself and live outside of mainstream society by bartering goods and services. This really bothers me, because that shouldn’t be the goal of progress. The paradox is that even though every new fiverr and mturk create more jobs, they lower the value of work. Right now this is affecting developing countries by creating a race-to-the-bottom economy, but the futurist in me looks all the way to the end and sees how so many jobs today (especially the non-production ones like administrative/clerical work) will eventually be automated by technology and thereby make the purchase of capital through labor even more expensive.

Does anyone see a way out of this? Did I miss something fundamental?

[leorocky]

I think the way out of this is a basic income guarantee. When a basic income is provided without requiring labor and this basic income meets the needs of an individual the cost of human labor will increase (the cost of everything will increase probably). This system assumes there is enough wealth around for the government to distribute enough to everyone.

This is Paul Krugman's take on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-f...

[Kiro]

>  the cost of human labor will increase (the cost of everything will increase probably)

How does that solve anything? Sounds like a pretty bad side-effect or is that really an objective with basic income?

[lmm]

Increasing the cost of human labour is an objective; it should encourage more automation and shorter working hours (which are probably more productive anyway, but people are irrational). And hopefully it will reduce the gap between good and bad jobs, giving people more choice of how they want to work.

Increasing the cost of everything is an unfortunate side-effect that will hopefully not be very big.

[Kiro]

Makes sense. Thanks!

[z2]

Andrew McAfee has a number of interesting articles and talks on this. E.g. http://andrewmcafee.org/2014/06/mcafee-autor-edsall-jobs-ski...

The way I see it, automated jobs will still add real value to the economy. Perhaps everyone can receive a share of that surplus through some form of universal income. At that point, assuming most of society's economic value creation is automated, monetary compensation could be completely decoupled from labor, yet everyone can be better off since everyone would be resource rich.

[vidarh]

This question has a 170+ year long history, yet somehow it has come to the forefront against in recent years with people often entirely ignoring its history.

The foundation of the birth of modern socialism in the 1840's was based on the basic premise that technology would drastically increased efficiency and grow the economy to a point where redistribution could eradicate poverty and reduce the amount of labour necessary.

To your specific suggestion, variations over this was the viewpoint of some of the earliest socialist ideologists, who believed it possible to transform society through example and appeals to decency and charity.

Marx was one of the earliest to criticise that view strongly.

As early as the mid 1840's he made the argument that one of the main sources of eventual downfall for capitalism would not be some sudden enlightenment of the elites, but that capitalism would be too successful (the Communist Manifesto starts with a number of paragraphs gushing over the advances that capitalism and the bourgeoise have brought - Marx saw the development of capitalism as absolutely essential for progress) and eventually lead to over-production and under-employment at the same time, causing massive social upheaval and eventually leading to revolution if (though Marx also argument strongly that it was a when, not if) the ruling classes refuse to redistribute voluntarily.

[jjoonathan]

> massive social upheaval and eventually leading to revolution if ... the ruling classes refuse to redistribute voluntarily.

The sad part is that his conclusion is only incorrect because the ruling class figured out (more plausibly, stumbled into) a strategy for doing precisely the minimum amount of redistribution required to avoid revolution.

http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/anya-groner-the-heart-you-s...

[e12e]

Maybe, maybe not -- see eg: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfork...

Another part of this is globalization -- you could argue that most people in the US (for example) are quite well off (as contrasted with complete destitution, starvation and lack of clean water) -- and one way to stave off revolution is to simply live on the other side of an ocean, and fill that ocean with friendly nuclear submarines and hangar ships.

But there is no guarantee such a scheme will last forever either -- as you'll likely still have people working in factories, and those factories will be producing (among other things) the weapons used for maintaining the status quo. At the very least it's hard to see how any industrial production could be made immune to strikes and sabotage, if the workers were desperate enough -- and that would likely result in a transfer of wealth (by no means is a "fair" outcome guaranteed, but change seems very likely).

I think it is too early to conclude that the revolution will never arrive. Be that just a small one (redistribution of wealth in the US for example) or a larger one (redistribution including the entire world).

[steveklabnik]

This was true to the point that the IWW had slogans about a four hour, four day workweek: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/01/help_us_thomas_piketty_the_1...

[bjelkeman-again]

I have said this before. But it may be worth repeating:

"The problem is that the worker who is going to be out of a job doesn't own the company that buys the robots to replace him/her. Ever heard of a lights out factory that has all the former assembly line workers at home with full salary? Didn't think so."

The way capitalist societies are structured doesn't really allow for income distribution that way, the way I understand it.

[dragonwriter]

> The way capitalist societies are structured doesn't really allow for income distribution that way, the way I understand it.

That's pretty much true-by-definition when it comes to "capitalist societies", but most advanced modern societies aren't really capitalist, and while the course hasn't been strictly monotonic, they've been overall getting farther from capitalism since the late 19th Century heyday of capitalism.

[lmm]

> "The problem is that the worker who is going to be out of a job doesn't own the company that buys the robots to replace him/her. Ever heard of a lights out factory that has all the former assembly line workers at home with full salary? Didn't think so."

Port containerization went a bit like that. Of course, that was back when America had labour unions.

[iak8god]

> The way capitalist societies are structured doesn't really allow for income distribution that way, the way I understand it.

In the fully-automated future, these societies will violently implode if they aren't reconfigured to provide people with something to do and something to eat.

[givan]

The internet helps globalize the digital labor market, competition from people that live in countries with low costs of living will drive the wages down for jobs that can be done from a computer and bureaucrats will be replaced by efficient databases, humans and paper are not very efficient.

This is natural evolution, IT wages bubble will burst because anyone with the proper education in any place in the world with lower expenses will be able to do it for less.

I hope the same happens with education, internet will change humanity in ways we can't imagine right now.

[presidentender]

In the aftermath of the Bubonic plague in Europe, the shortage of labor led to higher wages for serfs, eventually ending any semblance of what we'd call 'feudalism.'

I'm not advocating a mass die-off of human beings, but any other means of limiting the supply of low-quality labor would have the same effect. If some sort of back-to-the-land subsistence thing became popular among the youth, those who didn't partake might find that a McJob paid more by virtue of there being fewer people willing to do it. Sort of a "shrug" by the lower-class Atlas instead of the elite.

[scythe]

>If some sort of back-to-the-land subsistence thing became popular among the youth

This won't become popular because it means accepting a drastic decline in living standards: you lose Internet access, public transportation, access to a variety of goods, the rural area you move to might have a corrupt government or an underfunded police department -- why do you think gun ownership is so popular in small towns? -- you experience a lot of social isolation, etc.

This idea that people should move "back to the land" can only originate from the deepest misanthropy and ignorance of the plight of the lower classes -- or perhaps the most starry-eyed technocratic utopianism, if you think that society can somehow provide poor people in disparate areas with a modern lifestyle -- and I'm not holding my breath. Of course, we could just kick poor people to the curb like this; it seems to be our policy already, city councils won't approve new housing for them, they won't approve the construction of a Wal-Mart, expansion of transit services is always opposed by a chorus of veiled racists, etc.

[Loughla]

Gun ownership is popular in my particular small town because of hunting. What other reason would there be? Roaming bandits? Marauding biker gangs?

[presidentender]

I am a gun owner from a small town. What do I know?

[dctoedt]

> I am a gun owner from a small town.

That comment plus your handle ('presidentender) might get you a visit from the Secret Service ....

[VLM]

I would imagine enforcement of minimum wage laws on mturk might take care of that.

The turk is so rarely updated there is probably some kind of disruptive startup opening for someone to set up a middleman service paying an hourly wage to carefully tracked humans.

This might put a stop to the horrible turk habit of claiming a 20 minute survey only takes 2 minutes or writing some kids term paper only takes 30 minutes, which is technically true if you spend no time thinking about it and can type at 250 WPM, but for almost everyone else its a bit unrealistic.

Some communities have sprung up on reddit to highlite great HITs but they're very realtime and seems like as soon as a great HIT is posted to the reddit group, in seconds its gone, used up. A better marketplace dynamic could be set up. Clearly HITs and turkers are not really commodites after all in practice, so commodity market tools do fail. Tools that better match the market would be better for all participants, and the market maker skimming off the top, so its mystifying why they put no effort into it.

[jjoonathan]

If mturk becomes too successful, it'll draw political attention and suddenly minimum wage laws will apply and the business model will implode. Leaving it in a state of neglect until Amazon figures out how to fix that problem would be a strategic solution to that problem.

[pjc50]

Subsistence farming is something that almost the entire world tries to get away from as soon as possible, because apart from the food it's near-total poverty.

Also, what land? There isn't a vast reserve of untapped productive land lying around. It's all owned (capital) by someone who won't want you farming on it.

The only humane approach to too many people is a low birthrate movement, which requires universal free contraception. Something which a lot of Americans don't want to see happen.

[ChrisNorstrom]

"The only humane approach to too many people is a low birthrate movement"

That's not a solution, that's another problem. Japan, Europe, most of the USA, and even parts of Africa already have birth rates so low that they're below the replacement level. This causes workforce shortages, requires mass immigration, and causes several new problems in both host and guest countries. Japan itself is in a nose dive. Adult diapers outsell infant diapers. Less people = less customers = less money = less jobs.

"what land? There isn't a vast reserve of untapped productive land lying around."

That's what I thought. But there is. It's in Africa. A large swath of land the size of France got grabbed up during the 2007 Great African Land Grab which no one seemed to notice or care about other than the Oakland Institute. Communal lands were bribed and bought up for as little as 18 cents a hectare with the promise of infrastructure improvements and jobs. Few of which came into fruition.

[dragonwriter]

> The only humane approach to too many people is a low birthrate movement, which requires universal free contraception.

No, it doesn't require that: without universal free contraception, economic development and, particularly, strong social safety nets reduced birthrates in much of the developed world to below replacement levels. Note that this is less true of the USA than much of the modern developed world because while the USA has good aggregate economic output, it has fairly weak and unreliable social support systems for a developed country.

People have more children when children are your insurance against poverty due to age, disability, etc. -- as they have been for most of human history. When that becomes less true, they have fewer children.

[Loughla]

This is called idolizing the pastoral. The Pastoral was/is a popular literary genre/device.

Essentially, when we get disconnected from 'the simple life', we glorify and idolize it.

Having come from back-woods, subsistence farming to a white-collar, higher education job, I can tell you that (a) very few people understand the amount of stress and work required to survive in subsistence farming, (b) seriously, stress; you can starve, or (c) how much it sucks to do without modern conveniences like computers, internet and electricity.

Ever wonder why current day subsistence farmers aren't well known for their poetry or art? Because they spend all of their time finding and growing food.

In the future, I think we'll see a combination of McJob and responsibility for one's own future, much as we've seen for every generation before. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[presidentender]

I didn't say that opting out of the economy would benefit the people doing it. I said it would increase demand for labor by the workers who remained.

[galfarragem]

Resuming:

1-Globalization: technology and governments based in short term economics allow work to be made where is cheaper -> wages will be similar everywhere in the world in the near future.

2-Supply and demand: technology decreases the demand of human labor (automated work) and increases the supply (mturk, fiverr, freelancer, etc) -> wages decrease.

[hypertexthero]

One solution is a [Basic Income](http://binews.org/) — "an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement."

A Basic Income would help solve the problem of poverty and climate change, and should be a human right.

[taejo]

How does it solve climate change?

[pigeons]

One theory is that if people aren't forced to expand the economy via polluting methods of producing just to make enough money to live, some of the climate change alleged to be caused in part by that industrial activity will be ameliorated.

[oldmanjay]

it solves everything. just ask the proponents

[taejo]

I'm actually a proponent myself :)

[roymurdock]

Long comment but please bear with me:

To me, it doesn’t make sense to say that money is non-linear or non-constant. Money is not a function of time, therefore it does not make sense to describe it with time-dependent terms such as “linear” or "constant”. Inflation, the change in the purchasing power of money over time, yes. Money, no.

Money is simply a token that we use to represent the intangible concept of value. I think your comment seeks to address a change in what individuals, and by extension and on aggregate, societies, fundamentally value over time.

I’ll return to that in a bit. First let me address the problem with your example: It ignores the compounding returns to performing similar actions over time. Economically: Human capital accumulation. Colloquially: Experience.

When you get your first entry-level salaried job, you are actually a liability to the company. You come in with a low level of human capital - the company is basically paying to train you, all the while putting up with any potential mistakes due to your lack of experience. Why would a company do this?

By hiring you, the company is making an investment in your stock of human capital. It takes on some risk up front in return for some amount of reward in the future when you are wiser. As you gain experience over time, (ideally) you perform increasingly valuable tasks with a higher efficiency. You have accumulated the one thing youth (or old age for that matter) cannot buy for itself: time.

Getting paid for 3 hours for "little to no work" is a drop in the bucket compared to 10 years of solid, salaried employment.

By comparison, one-off jobs which might net you $20 in a couple of hours are a completely different situation where a low level of human capital is not purchased by means of a salaried contract. Rather, it is rented with a much shorter time horizon in mind, generally for menial tasks that require little to no experience.

To connect this idea back to the larger debate of “lowering the value of work”: I think you need to specify what kind of work you are talking about. I agree that the value of human menial labor is constantly decreasing. Why?

The supply of physical, menial tasks (washing dishes or mopping floors) is determined by the inflows of the human birthrate (more humans=more eating=more dishes to wash) and the outflows of automation (dishwashing machines), among other factors. Automation adds value by adding hours to our lives that would otherwise be spent washing dishes. For menial tasks it is generally more cost efficient. Thus the outflow outweighs the inflow (decreasing birthrate) leading to a lower supply of menial labor.

I don’t think we will revert to a hunter-gatherer bartering society in the future. Markets and specialization are much more efficient forms of raising standards of living, which I define as the ultimate goal of “human progress”. I think we will eventually need to reexamine our definition of “standards of living” as we move away from the realm of the physical to that of the virtual. Perhaps one (sad) day food will be unnecessary, as we redesign our bodies to subsist on a different form of energy, or do away with physical bodies altogether. This standard of living does not take into account food, shelter, transportation, etc. – the fundamentals that we strive to improve today through progress.

Anyways, enough with the science fiction and philosophizing. The fundamental lesson here is that the market gets what the market wants. There are a lot of human beings, so menial labor, both physical and mental, is in high supply driving down its relative value/price. Technology is eating jobs from the bottom up. Increase your human capital so that your brain is more valuable than a charged hunk of steel. Be the person who knows how to operate the machine and you will never have to beg for a $20 bus ticket.