10 ms·

Here's a though experiment I came up with several years ago: Say one day you created a copy of the Earth and with that copy, it had the same population as the c

Here's a though experiment I came up with several years ago: Say one day you created a copy of the Earth and with that copy, it had the same population as the current Earth, and they were connected so you can travel between them easily. I can see that these two worlds would need twice as many barbers as the current world. Would these two new worlds need twice as many Google/Facebook/etc. employees?

_-__--- 11y ago
there would be a hell of a lot more snapchats of people driving over that interplanetary bridge
- myth_buster 11y ago
  The snaps would be at best fuzzy what with you traveling at the speed of light...
bpodgursky 11y ago
Having twice the market would allow specialization into technology we don't have now because they are not profitable; division of labor works better the more people you have. Intel would never be possible in a world with 1mm people; their fab centers are spectacularly expensive fixed costs. So no, we wouldn't need 2x the Google employees, but there would be a need for employees in a market that doesn't exist now.
- ethbro 11y ago
  > Intel would never be possible in a world with 1mm people; their fab centers are spectacularly expensive fixed costs. I think that's an interesting point that's the continuation of OP's line of thinking + Ford's original thinking. Facebook/etc (to return to the pure-digital companies) would not be possible in a world without X people with disposable income. It's tough to make money on people who can't afford things. How's MySpace doing vs Facebook? Which imho is a rebuttal the opinion that these kinds of "pure tech" jobs do scale -- true, but only in relation to the number of other jobs people are already earning income from. You can't squeeze blood (revenue) from an (unemployed) stone.
kiba 11y ago
Some communities/field/industry could use some injection of brainpower. For example, creative writing communities can always use more manpower, to churn ideas, to work on stories, and to experiment, and to edit. Not every story niches or original ideas is filled or explored.
bko 11y ago
People often forget that jobs are an expense, not a benefit. We should celebrate that society can do more with less. If someone thinks that jobs need to be created through artificial means to keep people busy and give them some money, then that person has a rather dim view of human potential.
- evanpw 11y ago
  Related slatestarcodex post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-lik... "if your job can be done more cheaply without you, and the only reason you have it is because people would feel sorry for you if you didn’t, so the government forces your company to keep you on – well then, it’s not a job. It’s a welfare program that requires you to work 9 to 5 before seeing your welfare check."
  - guelo 11y ago
    That's only bad if you have a bad conception of "welfare program". If you think society should provide for the welfare of all its members than it's not a bad connotation.
    - evanpw 11y ago
      The post argues that this back-door form of welfare is inferior in just about every way to just cutting people a check, but that we tend to do it this way exactly because "welfare" has negative connotations: 'With all these advantages of “Simple Check”, what exactly is the “Sneaky Job” condition good for that makes it so popular? As far as I can tell, it is good for fooling people. People do not like paying welfare.'
      - minimuffins 11y ago
        > "welfare" has negative connotations > People do not like paying welfare. We should work on fighting this perception. Welfare is actually good. There was a time in the past ('30s-'70s) when welfare wasn't a bad word. People liked the idea of welfare. It was a positive idea. That we're still all talking like this, like welfare is a handout to worthless losers, etc is a testament to the success of Reaganite conservative politics. We all talk like Gordon Gekko now. We should rehabilitate the word and the idea. Say it with me: WELFARE IS GOOD AND COOL.
bradleyjg 11y ago
Sounds a little bit like the Long Earth series by Pratchett and Baxter. Though there it was an infinite number rather than just two, they were initially unpopulated, and there were sharp limits on moving material between worlds. (Cool premise mediocre execution IMO.) Anyway re: your original thought experiment I'd say no. If you look at the rapid growth phases of those companies, I don't think the employee growth rate was as fast as the customer growth rate. I think that's what people mean when they call something a scalable business.
- csarsam 11y ago
  I loved the premise of that series. Great source of worldbuilding porn, less great source of story arc and character development. I recall that in the expansion between worlds people with skills like medical training, agriculture and craftsmanship were valuable to settlement parties. In contrast, Helen Green's programmer father had to retrain in something like farming to be a viable member of a settlement party.
samstave 11y ago
The flow rate between planets will dictate the number of barbers you need on each. So saying you see 2x barber jobs is not accurate. IF on-par everything that each GOOG and FB need, then OK - sure... but assume GOOG and FB are mutually exclusive to each planet? If all services equal? THEN yes Are all resources and land masses in the same spot? Then you would need to regulate how any new natural discoveries are made -- and exploited... you dont want carlyle group plundering BOTH Earth-A AND Earth-B... Actually one should be depopulated and maintained as a plentary-level-nature reserve.
SilasX 11y ago
The same basic logic explains the folly of reducing unemployment by demand stimulus and the "consumers are the real job creators" mentality. If producing twice as many widgets requires (at least) twice as many workers, you're doing something wrong.
- specialist 11y ago
  Juicing consumption when the economy is a measure of consumption has a certain logic.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Sure, as much logic as there is in defining everything to be a nail to make your hammer seem more useful. When we worry about the economy, we're worried about a lot more than present consumption, or else we could just eat the seed corn and call it a day.
    - specialist 11y ago
      So an economy based on consumption is not sustainable?
      - SilasX 11y ago
        I was careful to say "present consumption", which is not the only thing we care about. If your economic model only cares about that, you will incorrectly focus on it at the expense of other things. Yes, the goal of all production is (some species of) consumption; that doesn't justify economic policies that artificially goose present consumption.
mangeletti 11y ago
Epic comment! I mean, I'm not suggesting that we should stop innovating and continue employing people for jobs that can be automated, but at some point we do have to realize that we will replace humans with machines.
pvelagal 11y ago
The real problems begin when machines become competent enough to do most of the jobs which currently humans do. The system of job-to-earn-money-to-live wouldn't work. Either money or jobs wouldn't have any significance for humanity for pure survival. Political systems will then change to accommodate human survival. Star trek's model of post scarcity economy would probably be the norm.

_-__--- 11y ago

there would be a hell of a lot more snapchats of people driving over that interplanetary bridge

myth_buster 11y ago
The snaps would be at best fuzzy what with you traveling at the speed of light...

bpodgursky 11y ago

Having twice the market would allow specialization into technology we don't have now because they are not profitable; division of labor works better the more people you have. Intel would never be possible in a world with 1mm people; their fab centers are spectacularly expensive fixed costs. So no, we wouldn't need 2x the Google employees, but there would be a need for employees in a market that doesn't exist now.

ethbro 11y ago
> Intel would never be possible in a world with 1mm people; their fab centers are spectacularly expensive fixed costs. I think that's an interesting point that's the continuation of OP's line of thinking + Ford's original thinking. Facebook/etc (to return to the pure-digital companies) would not be possible in a world without X people with disposable income. It's tough to make money on people who can't afford things. How's MySpace doing vs Facebook? Which imho is a rebuttal the opinion that these kinds of "pure tech" jobs do scale -- true, but only in relation to the number of other jobs people are already earning income from. You can't squeeze blood (revenue) from an (unemployed) stone.

kiba 11y ago

Some communities/field/industry could use some injection of brainpower. For example, creative writing communities can always use more manpower, to churn ideas, to work on stories, and to experiment, and to edit. Not every story niches or original ideas is filled or explored.

bko 11y ago

People often forget that jobs are an expense, not a benefit. We should celebrate that society can do more with less. If someone thinks that jobs need to be created through artificial means to keep people busy and give them some money, then that person has a rather dim view of human potential.

evanpw 11y ago
Related slatestarcodex post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-lik... "if your job can be done more cheaply without you, and the only reason you have it is because people would feel sorry for you if you didn’t, so the government forces your company to keep you on – well then, it’s not a job. It’s a welfare program that requires you to work 9 to 5 before seeing your welfare check."
- guelo 11y ago
  That's only bad if you have a bad conception of "welfare program". If you think society should provide for the welfare of all its members than it's not a bad connotation.
  - evanpw 11y ago
    The post argues that this back-door form of welfare is inferior in just about every way to just cutting people a check, but that we tend to do it this way exactly because "welfare" has negative connotations: 'With all these advantages of “Simple Check”, what exactly is the “Sneaky Job” condition good for that makes it so popular? As far as I can tell, it is good for fooling people. People do not like paying welfare.'
    - minimuffins 11y ago
      > "welfare" has negative connotations > People do not like paying welfare. We should work on fighting this perception. Welfare is actually good. There was a time in the past ('30s-'70s) when welfare wasn't a bad word. People liked the idea of welfare. It was a positive idea. That we're still all talking like this, like welfare is a handout to worthless losers, etc is a testament to the success of Reaganite conservative politics. We all talk like Gordon Gekko now. We should rehabilitate the word and the idea. Say it with me: WELFARE IS GOOD AND COOL.

bradleyjg 11y ago

Sounds a little bit like the Long Earth series by Pratchett and Baxter. Though there it was an infinite number rather than just two, they were initially unpopulated, and there were sharp limits on moving material between worlds. (Cool premise mediocre execution IMO.) Anyway re: your original thought experiment I'd say no. If you look at the rapid growth phases of those companies, I don't think the employee growth rate was as fast as the customer growth rate. I think that's what people mean when they call something a scalable business.

csarsam 11y ago
I loved the premise of that series. Great source of worldbuilding porn, less great source of story arc and character development. I recall that in the expansion between worlds people with skills like medical training, agriculture and craftsmanship were valuable to settlement parties. In contrast, Helen Green's programmer father had to retrain in something like farming to be a viable member of a settlement party.

samstave 11y ago

The flow rate between planets will dictate the number of barbers you need on each. So saying you see 2x barber jobs is not accurate. IF on-par everything that each GOOG and FB need, then OK - sure... but assume GOOG and FB are mutually exclusive to each planet? If all services equal? THEN yes Are all resources and land masses in the same spot? Then you would need to regulate how any new natural discoveries are made -- and exploited... you dont want carlyle group plundering BOTH Earth-A AND Earth-B... Actually one should be depopulated and maintained as a plentary-level-nature reserve.

SilasX 11y ago

The same basic logic explains the folly of reducing unemployment by demand stimulus and the "consumers are the real job creators" mentality. If producing twice as many widgets requires (at least) twice as many workers, you're doing something wrong.

specialist 11y ago
Juicing consumption when the economy is a measure of consumption has a certain logic.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Sure, as much logic as there is in defining everything to be a nail to make your hammer seem more useful. When we worry about the economy, we're worried about a lot more than present consumption, or else we could just eat the seed corn and call it a day.
  - specialist 11y ago
    So an economy based on consumption is not sustainable?
    - SilasX 11y ago
      I was careful to say "present consumption", which is not the only thing we care about. If your economic model only cares about that, you will incorrectly focus on it at the expense of other things. Yes, the goal of all production is (some species of) consumption; that doesn't justify economic policies that artificially goose present consumption.

mangeletti 11y ago

Epic comment! I mean, I'm not suggesting that we should stop innovating and continue employing people for jobs that can be automated, but at some point we do have to realize that we will replace humans with machines.

pvelagal 11y ago

The real problems begin when machines become competent enough to do most of the jobs which currently humans do. The system of job-to-earn-money-to-live wouldn't work. Either money or jobs wouldn't have any significance for humanity for pure survival. Political systems will then change to accommodate human survival. Star trek's model of post scarcity economy would probably be the norm.