>But it would be truly pathetic if the legal/economic organisation of our society was optimised for government surveillance and tax collection and not for the exercise of autonomy in pursuit of a meaningful life.
Unfortunately, it already is. Bureaucracy is essentially an approach where the 'server' (government/business/whatever) forces the 'clients' (individuals/employees) to change their behavior for the benefit of the 'server', with no clear benefit for the 'clients'. When considering it in these terms, words like 'oppressive' seem to have some significance. After all, the definition of the word is:
>Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
In the case of bureaucracy, the 'burdensome' and, arguably, 'unjust' components of the definition are fitting.
Either way, it's inspiring to see these issues finally being discussed in mainstream mediums.
Author uses the terms government surveillance and tax collection as if they are inherently bad things.
There are some things I want the government to watch, at both a local and federal level. And keep in mind Oliver Wendell Holmes's Jr's adage about taxes: they help foot the bill for civilization.
As for bureaucracy: it's a burden, but the alternative in many societies is systematic corruption. The author writes:
Less obviously, but at least as importantly, we need to eliminate the insane patchwork of regulations that keep folks from legally cutting hair for money in a kitchen, or legally making a few bucks every now and then taxiing people around town in a 1988 Ford Escort.
If it's an insane patchwork, perhaps. But if it's a sensible patchwork that helps keep schools funded and slows society for a dispiriting race to the bottom, why the hell would we want to do this?
When writing software, the goal is often to take some task which a human once did manually, and to partially or completely automate it. I automate as much of my daily work-flow as possible. If I could, I would automate myself right out of writing software all together.
I think this attitude explains why I loath the employee-employer fixed pay relationship so much. Selling your time, day-in, day-out, to write software, is antithetical to the very act of writing software, because, as the developer, you haven’t automated yourself out of any future work.
I think that the reason for what you describe is essentially a paradigm mismatch. Automation aims to reduce the amount of work while businesses have the goal of making as much money as possible and, by extension, since money can only be acquired by working, essentially attempt to automate as little as possible. Personally, I think that this is an old and outdated way of living. It's the same thing that simple biological organisms do - go towards pleasure and away from pain. It explains why, for example, so many software houses only look at the short term and don't take time to design decent systems which are adaptable to change, even though they know that requirements are always shifting. I call this approach 'dumb-lazy', whereas the automation approach is 'smart-lazy'.
I ironically used to work for McKinsey and was among their top performers, then I dropped out of the rat race and have been doing just enough freelance work to stay afloat. I didn't know there was a term for my type, but "threshold earner" gives me a sense of legitimacy. I like it.
I guess I don't read the economist blogs as much, but this article has a completely different feel from their magazine: much more laid back and curious, if a little rambling. Its a nice change, though
The last paragraph ties into business models like AirBnb and UberCab: where people just do some work or offer something and get paid for it, without a lot of red tape and hassles and registering as a business.
It would be great if business and labor laws were streamlined to make this as easy as possible, but its disruptive to larger corporations and current stakeholders, so I suspect there's vested interest in trying to keep the status quo, unfortunately. But the success of AirBnb, etc is a great sign.
> It would be great if business and labor laws were streamlined to make this as easy as possible, but its disruptive to larger corporations and current stakeholders ...
Certainly that's one part of the phenomenon. But keep in mind that regulations exist also because there are always people who want to take in as much money as possible while doing as little work as possible, leaving others---possibly meaning the public---to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
(A recent example: Wall Street investment bankers, playing the heads-we-win, tails-the-public-loses game with bank bailouts. A recurring example: Polluters.)
> without a lot of red tape and hassles and registering as a business
I don't know if there have been any horror stories yet, but the reality is that in our society, you need those protections offered by registering as a business and dealing with the red tape.
Our laws are set up in such a way that the individual is at much greater personal risk when acting as an individual than as a business entity with the individual as its sole member.
My brother likes to say that America is an adolescent, while Europe is the adult. According to the article, it sounds like the America is growing up and it's manifesting as a desire for job autonomy in the labor market.
However, the author misses an important link between job autonomy and the question posed, "What is the single best thing Washington can do to jumpstart job creation?"...
The fundamental reason that "job autonomy" is more viable today, is thanks to the internet and free-flowing information. If there is one thing the government could do to jumpstart job creation, it would be to improve the regulatory structure surrounding the internet, bust the monopolies that are gouging us for awful service and give incentives for startup ISP's to take their place.
Mark Mills writing is a tad more jocular and Wall-Streety than a good HN article's level of nuance, but he has some very good insight into American and Chinese manufacturing and employment levels in this Forbes article:
He appears to be using it in the sense of people whose aspirations involve things other than material prosperity, at least past a threshhold of "comfortable, Western middle class".
If you achieve comfortable Western middle-class, what do you aspire to past that? A traditional and quite common aspiration is to move more into the upper class: to make enough money to regularly travel the world, buy a large house, buy a sports car, or perhaps even move into the higher tier of owning a beach home in Hawaii, yacht, private jet, etc.
"Post-materialists", on the other hand, tend to be satisfied with the Western-middle-class level of prosperity, and once they reach it start aspiring to things like greater autonomy, fewer working hours, greater proportion of time spent on creative endeavors, etc. I don't really like the phrase "post-materialist" (feels judgmental), and sort of prefer Tyler Cowen's phrase "threshold earners" (which this article also cites), as a more neutral description of people whose monetary aspirations are to reach a comfortable threshhold and stop there.
The article is a bit rambling, but what I take as the takeaway is that accounting for those kinds of aspirations requires something more than just "economic grwoth", since it's not really a linear scale of move up in the economy --> move up further in the economy. Instead it has more to do with flexibility of work arrangements, barriers to self-employment, etc.
"If you had to choose among the following things, which are the two that seem the most desirable to you?
Maintaining order in the nation.
Giving people more say in important political decisions.
Fighting rising prices.
Protecting freedom of speech.
... On the basis of the choices made among these four items, it is possible to classify our respondents into value priority groups, ranging from a 'pure' acquisitive type to a 'pure' post-bourgeois type, with several intermediate categories."
There was a longer test with more items in, I remember one was looking after the environment.
Inglehart claimed that a certain type of generous life could incubate people into his "post-materialist" mindset, and then they wouldn't change to "materialist" even if they were subsequently exposed to hardship.
Long time since I read any of it. This being one of those topics where I got to write an essay and then reuse it for another subject the next year. For shame! :)
It stuck with me partly because I found "Giving people more say in important political decisions." to be a very uncomfortable idea. I've changed position somewhat since I last thought about this.
""The country is ready for the five day week. It is bound to come through all industry. In adopting it ourselves, we are putting it into effect in about fifty industries, for we are coal miners, iron miners, lumbermen, and so on. The short week is bound to come, because without it the country will not be able to absorb its production and stay prosperous.
"The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.
"The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad."
Henry Ford knew the answer 90 years ago, the key to keeping consumption up is to give people time to spend it. Think about it this way, a 5 day work week is 25% longer than a 4 day work week but most importantly gives people 50% more leisure time. During this leisure time people will consume more. Transitioning to a 4 day work week (with 5 days pay) would result in 50% more time to consume and would eliminate unemployment almost immediately.
The best thing the government could do to solve unemployment problems is to make a 4 day work week standard and institute overtime for the 5th day. The reality of the situation is that large numbers of unemployed people lead to instability in the political realm.
I think this is a fantastic idea. I was curious though what you think about this leading to the work week getting overly short? Isnt this a step in the direction of making the work week shorter. But nonetheless I really like this well thoughtout comment!
I think once you're in a certain income level, it doesn't matter how much more you make... until you hit that next income level. As long as you meeting your survival needs, and not stressing out (live paycheck by paycheck), and of course don't have a disease/illness, then it doesn't matter if you make $80K, or $200K, or even $400K/year... it's not until you hit the million dollar mark where things get interesting. That's when you have financial freedom, and options open up. So I agree with the threshold thing to an extent.
Financial freedom isn't about how big your income is, but how long you could live without that income. If I'm making $1m a year, but I'm a dumbass and spend $995k, I'm just as tied to my paycheck as the guy who only earns $50k and spends $45k. A guy who earns $100k a year and still only spends $45k is much better off than either of those two. Having a larger income impacts your financial freedom only to the extent that you're able to sock more money away and live off of that (or the proceeds if you invest). Otherwise, you're just a wage slave with nicer toys.
Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does buy options.
I can't imagine you think that the marginal utilityof income is ever increasing (which is the result of a literal reading of you comment: the 120k between 80k and 200k is worth less than the 120k that puts you over the million dollar mark), so you must just be describing the standard case of marginal utility of income strongly decreasing. The fact that this is decreasing quickly is very important for life decisions, of course, but should be stated more clearly.
> once you're in a certain income level, it doesn't matter how much more you make... until you hit that next income level.
Studies [0] have shown that, in essence, money and happiness correlate up to about $75k/year for a U.S. family of four. Above that level, money might open up options, but it doesn't seem to increase happiness as a whole. As others have noted, you can have a lot of financial freedom well below the million dollar mark, or be financially burdened above it.
It should come as no surprise that some people have come to that realization, and decided to simply meet the threshold, life a financially stable lifestyle at that level, and invest the rest of their energy in enjoying life.
[+] [-] Produce|14 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, it already is. Bureaucracy is essentially an approach where the 'server' (government/business/whatever) forces the 'clients' (individuals/employees) to change their behavior for the benefit of the 'server', with no clear benefit for the 'clients'. When considering it in these terms, words like 'oppressive' seem to have some significance. After all, the definition of the word is:
>Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
In the case of bureaucracy, the 'burdensome' and, arguably, 'unjust' components of the definition are fitting.
Either way, it's inspiring to see these issues finally being discussed in mainstream mediums.
[+] [-] klenwell|14 years ago|reply
There are some things I want the government to watch, at both a local and federal level. And keep in mind Oliver Wendell Holmes's Jr's adage about taxes: they help foot the bill for civilization.
As for bureaucracy: it's a burden, but the alternative in many societies is systematic corruption. The author writes:
Less obviously, but at least as importantly, we need to eliminate the insane patchwork of regulations that keep folks from legally cutting hair for money in a kitchen, or legally making a few bucks every now and then taxiing people around town in a 1988 Ford Escort.
If it's an insane patchwork, perhaps. But if it's a sensible patchwork that helps keep schools funded and slows society for a dispiriting race to the bottom, why the hell would we want to do this?
[+] [-] euroclydon|14 years ago|reply
I think this attitude explains why I loath the employee-employer fixed pay relationship so much. Selling your time, day-in, day-out, to write software, is antithetical to the very act of writing software, because, as the developer, you haven’t automated yourself out of any future work.
[+] [-] Produce|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blader|14 years ago|reply
Interestingly, the usual way to accomplish this is to become an employer.
[+] [-] purplefruit|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxGabriel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wilder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zipdog|14 years ago|reply
It would be great if business and labor laws were streamlined to make this as easy as possible, but its disruptive to larger corporations and current stakeholders, so I suspect there's vested interest in trying to keep the status quo, unfortunately. But the success of AirBnb, etc is a great sign.
[+] [-] dctoedt|14 years ago|reply
Certainly that's one part of the phenomenon. But keep in mind that regulations exist also because there are always people who want to take in as much money as possible while doing as little work as possible, leaving others---possibly meaning the public---to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
(A recent example: Wall Street investment bankers, playing the heads-we-win, tails-the-public-loses game with bank bailouts. A recurring example: Polluters.)
[+] [-] maqr|14 years ago|reply
I don't know if there have been any horror stories yet, but the reality is that in our society, you need those protections offered by registering as a business and dealing with the red tape.
Our laws are set up in such a way that the individual is at much greater personal risk when acting as an individual than as a business entity with the individual as its sole member.
[+] [-] joelhaus|14 years ago|reply
However, the author misses an important link between job autonomy and the question posed, "What is the single best thing Washington can do to jumpstart job creation?"...
The fundamental reason that "job autonomy" is more viable today, is thanks to the internet and free-flowing information. If there is one thing the government could do to jumpstart job creation, it would be to improve the regulatory structure surrounding the internet, bust the monopolies that are gouging us for awful service and give incentives for startup ISP's to take their place.
[+] [-] euroclydon|14 years ago|reply
http://blogs.forbes.com/markpmills/2011/07/05/manufacturing-...
[+] [-] gruseom|14 years ago|reply
Me too! (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1287346) I've never heard of David Ellerman. Anybody here read him?
[+] [-] iwwr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|14 years ago|reply
If you achieve comfortable Western middle-class, what do you aspire to past that? A traditional and quite common aspiration is to move more into the upper class: to make enough money to regularly travel the world, buy a large house, buy a sports car, or perhaps even move into the higher tier of owning a beach home in Hawaii, yacht, private jet, etc.
"Post-materialists", on the other hand, tend to be satisfied with the Western-middle-class level of prosperity, and once they reach it start aspiring to things like greater autonomy, fewer working hours, greater proportion of time spent on creative endeavors, etc. I don't really like the phrase "post-materialist" (feels judgmental), and sort of prefer Tyler Cowen's phrase "threshold earners" (which this article also cites), as a more neutral description of people whose monetary aspirations are to reach a comfortable threshhold and stop there.
The article is a bit rambling, but what I take as the takeaway is that accounting for those kinds of aspirations requires something more than just "economic grwoth", since it's not really a linear scale of move up in the economy --> move up further in the economy. Instead it has more to do with flexibility of work arrangements, barriers to self-employment, etc.
[+] [-] cturner|14 years ago|reply
"If you had to choose among the following things, which are the two that seem the most desirable to you?
... On the basis of the choices made among these four items, it is possible to classify our respondents into value priority groups, ranging from a 'pure' acquisitive type to a 'pure' post-bourgeois type, with several intermediate categories."There was a longer test with more items in, I remember one was looking after the environment.
Inglehart claimed that a certain type of generous life could incubate people into his "post-materialist" mindset, and then they wouldn't change to "materialist" even if they were subsequently exposed to hardship.
Long time since I read any of it. This being one of those topics where I got to write an essay and then reuse it for another subject the next year. For shame! :)
It stuck with me partly because I found "Giving people more say in important political decisions." to be a very uncomfortable idea. I've changed position somewhat since I last thought about this.
[+] [-] fleitz|14 years ago|reply
"The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.
"The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad."
http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm
Henry Ford knew the answer 90 years ago, the key to keeping consumption up is to give people time to spend it. Think about it this way, a 5 day work week is 25% longer than a 4 day work week but most importantly gives people 50% more leisure time. During this leisure time people will consume more. Transitioning to a 4 day work week (with 5 days pay) would result in 50% more time to consume and would eliminate unemployment almost immediately.
The best thing the government could do to solve unemployment problems is to make a 4 day work week standard and institute overtime for the 5th day. The reality of the situation is that large numbers of unemployed people lead to instability in the political realm.
[+] [-] johnnyjustice|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hisoka|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bartonfink|14 years ago|reply
Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does buy options.
[+] [-] jessriedel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotharbot|14 years ago|reply
Studies [0] have shown that, in essence, money and happiness correlate up to about $75k/year for a U.S. family of four. Above that level, money might open up options, but it doesn't seem to increase happiness as a whole. As others have noted, you can have a lot of financial freedom well below the million dollar mark, or be financially burdened above it.
It should come as no surprise that some people have come to that realization, and decided to simply meet the threshold, life a financially stable lifestyle at that level, and invest the rest of their energy in enjoying life.
[0] http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/09/study-says-$75,000-... describes one such study
[+] [-] known|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roel_v|14 years ago|reply