News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Labor Supply and the Attention Tax by colechristensen on Sunday October 21, 2018 @02:55PM (#18269494)
This is the epitome of late stage capitalism and a sign of the post-scarcity economy. "The economy" should serve human needs, not the other way around. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the proposal here is to destroy leisure availability here... why?

As automation progresses we are going to have a lot more people who don't want or need to work. This would be much further along if the economy of capital inequality wasn't so distorted.

Young men apparently don't have to work full time to survive, don't want to, and are free to do things they want. This is being painted as a bad thing either because they should be working because work > leisure or assuming that work is inaccessible rather than undesired (probably both, definitely not just one)

I, personally, would like to work a lot less. The reason I can't are two fold. 1) it's uncommon for employers to hire highly skilled workers in part time roles and 2) the cost of living ballooned up to eat any excess income by rent seekers.

>The chief aim of their constitution and government is that, whenever public needs permit, all citizens should be free, so far as possible, to withdraw their time and energy from the service of the body, and devote themselves to the freedom and culture of the mind. For that, they think, is the real happiness of life.

Re:Labor Supply and the Attention Tax by Transfinity on Sunday October 21, 2018 @04:05PM (#18269865)
> Young men apparently don't have to work full time to survive, don't want to, and are free to do things they want. This is being painted as a bad thing...

I don't agree that the authors call this a bad thing. They call it out as an interesting trend that is different than what we've seen before, and run through the thought experiment of what you could do about it _if_ you thought it was bad. From the article:

> You might argue this is a good thing. People actually prefer to spend their time consuming media over working, and we have achieved the luxury of enabling them to act on this preference.

> If you’re in the camp that thinks lower economic output is bad, the natural follow-up question is what kind of policy changes might counteract this phenomenon.

> While it is fun to explore alternative mechanisms for motivating the labor force if labor supply no longer responds to increases in wages, it is far more likely that lost worker productivity will be made up for with technology (eg, automation via robotics, software, artificial intelligence) that makes remaining workers more productive. While this would lead to a host of other problems (eg, inequality) and almost certainly lead to a welfare state, it is probably more straightforward to implement the necessary technological advances than the attention tax. Furthermore, a welfare state where most people could devote most of their time to the pursuit of leisure seems to be more consistent with preferences revealed by recent trends in labor participation and alternative uses of time.

Re:Labor Supply and the Attention Tax by wycs on Sunday October 21, 2018 @04:19PM (#18269963)
I don’t think you finished the essay. It is very clear they don’t believe the policy proposed can be implemented and it is only slightly less clear that they think it is undesirable.
Re:Labor Supply and the Attention Tax by colechristensen on Sunday October 21, 2018 @04:45PM (#18270123)
That's true, I did read quickly and skip parts. The bulk of the essay remains about one thing while the conclusion negates it, to a degree. It is difficult to come away with a conclusion of what the authors believe because they spend most of the article advocating for one position and reverse in the end.