4 ms·

Maybe, but it seems a weird argument to make during record low unemployment. Yes, I'm aware of labor force participation rates, and that the pay for many of the

Maybe, but it seems a weird argument to make during record low unemployment. Yes, I'm aware of labor force participation rates, and that the pay for many of these jobs is too low, AI is predicted to destroy jobs, etc, but that's not what we're talking about, right? Amazon employs way more people than B&N, the company they put out of business. Maybe those jobs should be better (OK, they definitely should), but that's different from saying there are no jobs, isn't it?

ivraatiems 9y ago
> Maybe, but it seems a weird argument to make during record low unemployment. Yes, I'm aware of labor force participation rates, and that the pay for many of these jobs is too low, AI is predicted to destroy jobs, etc, but that's not what we're talking about, right? Admittedly, I'm driving the conversation towards a general problem from this specific example. But I think that even if I accept the premise that right now, things are OK, we still need to prepare for the future that's coming. Automation is coming for truck and taxi drivers, for restaurant workers, for the last remaining factory jobs. It's even coming for relatively skilled workers in some fields. It's not directly what this post is talking about, but it's the context in which this post takes place, and we shouldn't avoid it. > Amazon employs way more people than B&N, the company they put out of business. Maybe those jobs should be better (OK, they definitely should), but that's different from saying there are no jobs, isn't it? Amazon employs more people than B&N, but B&N is by no means the first or only company they have destroyed, and there are more to come. And as soon as Amazon can make the same amount of money while employing fewer people, they will do so. Every company does. The cycle repeats, only this time more people lose and fewer people gain.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  we still need to prepare for the future that's coming I disagree, honestly. Not because I don't think all the things you're saying will happen will happen, but because of all the things that are also going to happen that we're not talking about, because we don't know what they are. Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but what new sectors, opportunities, jobs, etc. will be created? I'm an optimist, so I genuinely think we'll adjust and adapt. I think we'll end up with most people doing jobs that don't exist today. I could be wrong though. However, no one knows the future, and the prediction that tech will destroy more jobs than it creates has been made since the start of the industrial revolution. So you basically have to fall back on the claim that "this time it's different". Which has also been made repeatedly during that time period :) But honestly, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether we should prepare or not, because we won't. Not in America at least. There is no chance in hell that our political system will get its act together in the next two decades to get ahead of this problem and put policies in place for a bad situation that's coming but hasn't arrived yet. Look at all the problems that we know are problems because we're already living through them that we won't even fix now. We just put patches in place (maybe) and keep kicking the can down the road. Seriously, if half the jobs in America get destroyed in the next 20 years, it'll take us 40 years (or violent revolution) to address it.
  - ivraatiems 9y ago
    I'm confused by the duality in your comment. You say that in 10-20 years, tons of jobs are going away. You say it seems very unlikely the American political system is going to address it without violence in any successful manner. But you also say that you think we will adjust and adapt and thereby keep the work a job, make a living system that we have. I don't see how that optimistic result follows from the pessimistic future you predict. And I think we're talking about the same problem - a period of volatility due to a lack of available work and a refusal to acknowledge the failures of our current system - but looking at different resolutions. I don't accept violence to restore status quo as the only possible solution. This is what I think: Your predictions are relatively spot on, if nothing changes, but we have the opportunity to change them if we act now. If we install a government dedicated to addressing these problems, if we begin to think seriously about solutions rather than spending time repeating the same arguments about whether the problem exists at all, we can fix it. Yes, we've failed to do this on other things (e. g. climate change, North Korea, etc.) until it was more than a little too late, but the fact our society still exists and functions suggests that we must have had some success, too. Remember that it's only in the last couple centuries that we transitioned from most countries being monarchies or what we'd now call dictatorships to most countries being at least some level of democracy. It's only in the last couple centuries we've tried systems of economy and government other than direct rule by a ruling cast. Some of those systems didn't work (full communism, fascism); some have worked out quite well thus far (modern capitalism, democratic socialism a la much of Europe), and of course many are in the middle. We can work out systems which are better still, and we can transition into them without violence or (too much) societal strife, but only if we can at least acknowledge that it's necessary or even just wiser to do so than to try and maintain the system we've got just because it's what we have. TL;DR: You're right that we don't know what's coming, but, in my opinion, it's a mistake to assume we can't decide for ourselves if we move quickly.
    - hueving 9y ago
      The part you're missing is that jobs will also be created while others are destroyed. We lost tons of horse caring jobs as we switched to the automobile but it didn't wipe out society.
- prklmn 9y ago
  >>And as soon as Amazon can make the same amount of money while employing fewer people, they will do so. Every company does. The cycle repeats, only this time more people lose and fewer people gain. Not every company does, every public company does. It seems hard to believe in this day but there are some privately owned family-run businesses that care deeply about their employees and aren’t looking to cut labor costs as a means of profitability.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Then their competitors will and steal their market share via lower prices.
lmm 9y ago
> Amazon employs way more people than B&N, the company they put out of business. Maybe those jobs should be better (OK, they definitely should), but that's different from saying there are no jobs, isn't it? Amazon doesn't employ them, they contract certain services from them. Your first post talks about "getting laid off" but it won't even be that, it'll be not extending their contract. Most people can still, for the time being, contribute to the economy - but already not at a level where the economy is comfortable hiring them for the long term. The "jobs" Amazon offers are explicitly designed to be automated away.

ivraatiems 9y ago

> Maybe, but it seems a weird argument to make during record low unemployment. Yes, I'm aware of labor force participation rates, and that the pay for many of these jobs is too low, AI is predicted to destroy jobs, etc, but that's not what we're talking about, right? Admittedly, I'm driving the conversation towards a general problem from this specific example. But I think that even if I accept the premise that right now, things are OK, we still need to prepare for the future that's coming. Automation is coming for truck and taxi drivers, for restaurant workers, for the last remaining factory jobs. It's even coming for relatively skilled workers in some fields. It's not directly what this post is talking about, but it's the context in which this post takes place, and we shouldn't avoid it. > Amazon employs way more people than B&N, the company they put out of business. Maybe those jobs should be better (OK, they definitely should), but that's different from saying there are no jobs, isn't it? Amazon employs more people than B&N, but B&N is by no means the first or only company they have destroyed, and there are more to come. And as soon as Amazon can make the same amount of money while employing fewer people, they will do so. Every company does. The cycle repeats, only this time more people lose and fewer people gain.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
we still need to prepare for the future that's coming I disagree, honestly. Not because I don't think all the things you're saying will happen will happen, but because of all the things that are also going to happen that we're not talking about, because we don't know what they are. Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but what new sectors, opportunities, jobs, etc. will be created? I'm an optimist, so I genuinely think we'll adjust and adapt. I think we'll end up with most people doing jobs that don't exist today. I could be wrong though. However, no one knows the future, and the prediction that tech will destroy more jobs than it creates has been made since the start of the industrial revolution. So you basically have to fall back on the claim that "this time it's different". Which has also been made repeatedly during that time period :) But honestly, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether we should prepare or not, because we won't. Not in America at least. There is no chance in hell that our political system will get its act together in the next two decades to get ahead of this problem and put policies in place for a bad situation that's coming but hasn't arrived yet. Look at all the problems that we know are problems because we're already living through them that we won't even fix now. We just put patches in place (maybe) and keep kicking the can down the road. Seriously, if half the jobs in America get destroyed in the next 20 years, it'll take us 40 years (or violent revolution) to address it.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  I'm confused by the duality in your comment. You say that in 10-20 years, tons of jobs are going away. You say it seems very unlikely the American political system is going to address it without violence in any successful manner. But you also say that you think we will adjust and adapt and thereby keep the work a job, make a living system that we have. I don't see how that optimistic result follows from the pessimistic future you predict. And I think we're talking about the same problem - a period of volatility due to a lack of available work and a refusal to acknowledge the failures of our current system - but looking at different resolutions. I don't accept violence to restore status quo as the only possible solution. This is what I think: Your predictions are relatively spot on, if nothing changes, but we have the opportunity to change them if we act now. If we install a government dedicated to addressing these problems, if we begin to think seriously about solutions rather than spending time repeating the same arguments about whether the problem exists at all, we can fix it. Yes, we've failed to do this on other things (e. g. climate change, North Korea, etc.) until it was more than a little too late, but the fact our society still exists and functions suggests that we must have had some success, too. Remember that it's only in the last couple centuries that we transitioned from most countries being monarchies or what we'd now call dictatorships to most countries being at least some level of democracy. It's only in the last couple centuries we've tried systems of economy and government other than direct rule by a ruling cast. Some of those systems didn't work (full communism, fascism); some have worked out quite well thus far (modern capitalism, democratic socialism a la much of Europe), and of course many are in the middle. We can work out systems which are better still, and we can transition into them without violence or (too much) societal strife, but only if we can at least acknowledge that it's necessary or even just wiser to do so than to try and maintain the system we've got just because it's what we have. TL;DR: You're right that we don't know what's coming, but, in my opinion, it's a mistake to assume we can't decide for ourselves if we move quickly.
  - hueving 9y ago
    The part you're missing is that jobs will also be created while others are destroyed. We lost tons of horse caring jobs as we switched to the automobile but it didn't wipe out society.
prklmn 9y ago
>>And as soon as Amazon can make the same amount of money while employing fewer people, they will do so. Every company does. The cycle repeats, only this time more people lose and fewer people gain. Not every company does, every public company does. It seems hard to believe in this day but there are some privately owned family-run businesses that care deeply about their employees and aren’t looking to cut labor costs as a means of profitability.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Then their competitors will and steal their market share via lower prices.

lmm 9y ago

> Amazon employs way more people than B&N, the company they put out of business. Maybe those jobs should be better (OK, they definitely should), but that's different from saying there are no jobs, isn't it? Amazon doesn't employ them, they contract certain services from them. Your first post talks about "getting laid off" but it won't even be that, it'll be not extending their contract. Most people can still, for the time being, contribute to the economy - but already not at a level where the economy is comfortable hiring them for the long term. The "jobs" Amazon offers are explicitly designed to be automated away.