5 ms·

I think you're oversimplifying and ignoring a few key factors here. 1) As has been shown time and time again, the rewards of productivity gains accrue to the

I think you're oversimplifying and ignoring a few key factors here. 1) As has been shown time and time again, the rewards of productivity gains accrue to the owners of capital far more than to the workers who are more productive. The result is widening inequality on many levels, which extrapolated a few decades into the future ends up looking... not great. I hope we can agree that de facto serfdom is a bad thing. 2) You can't just look at the number of new jobs when making employment generalizations - you have to look at the quality and type of jobs that were created to replace the ones lost. It's like if you took away someone's house and then gave them a tiny apartment a year later, then claimed "Look, they got housing back! Everything's great again!". In the case of employment, the vast majority of jobs created in the last decade have been contract positions and low-end temp work [1]. If you look at the sectors where employment has grown when new jobs data comes out, low-end service jobs continuously top the list (ex. [2]). We can debate whether or not people actually want these types of new jobs as opposed to traditional real estate/financial services/salaried construction/etc. jobs that were lost in 2009-2010. 3) We haven't hit the automation crisis yet in any meaningful way. When autonomous trucks and warehouse robots become prevalent, then we will be in an actual crisis. The automation crisis right now is not that everyone is going to lose their jobs overnight, but that automation is exacerbating big problems in the jobs market that lead to massive inequality, the prevalence of underemployment, and the trend towards bad jobs with few or no benefits and workers needing to work gigs on the side to make ends meet or afford the things that their normal job would have provided in decades past. When large swathes of workers lose their jobs to automation in the future, these problems are going to continue to compound unless we start making big policy changes. Yes, people will likely find new jobs to replace the ones lost, but will they actually be better or worse off than before? [1] https://krueger.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/akrueger/files/katz_krueger_cws_-_march_29_20165.pdf https://krueger.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/akrueger/f... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/business/economy/services-still-the-backbone-of-job-growth-data-shows.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/business/economy/services...

gervase 8y ago
> I hope we can agree that de facto serfdom is a bad thing. There is actually some evidence that what we currently have is already worse than serfdom [0] in many ways. I don't think this is a crisis which is about to occur, but one which has already started, is currently ongoing, and will probably get much worse. [0] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w...
- rjbwork 8y ago
  In serfdom, didn't the owners of the land get a certain percentage of your output?
rohit2412 8y ago
1) and 2) seem to be largely effects of a globalized eceonomy, with outsourcing and resulting inequality. Automation seems to be truly a boogie monster you can put blame on. Trains also took away long distance horse buggie jobs. They were largely automated too. And finally, if you think driverless cars are nearby, then so are completely humanoid robots who can do all the work a human can do.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  Funny you mention horses, as it is a common analogy in these discourses. The horse population actually declined as they became less necessary thanks to transportation innovations. CGP Grey explained this well: https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=212 https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=212
  - adventured 8y ago
    It's the exact same thing that is going to occur with the human population. The current popular calculations for global population growth and the reduction of that growth, are wildly wrong. The reduction in growth and eventual decline is going to happen sooner and will be far more aggressive. The horses were replaced, the humans will be replaced.
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    >The horse population actually declined No shit. There's fewer typewriters these days too.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Everyone in the world used to be a farmer. Now, only 1% of the population in developed countries farm. This time it's different? Actually, I can agree that there had been reduction in global jobs as world gets slowly automated. But there won't be a sudden takeover of all jobs by some super sentient AI leading to mass unemployment. And neither are the current problems of inequality, debt, low wages a result of an increasing productivity, but rather increasing globalization.
- sp527 8y ago
Chathamization 8y ago
You bring up important issues, but there doesn't seem to be an reason to think they are the result of automation. There have been periods in the past with higher levels of productivity growth that have corresponded with a decrease in inequality. Now we're in a period of low productivity growth corresponding with an increase in inequality. As for self driving trucks, I remember people telling me a decade ago that they would have lead to mass unemployment by now. The predictions of an impending automation crisis haven't had a great track record.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  Is there a reason to think they are not the result of automation? Take a look at [1] - robots brought into US factories are directly responsible for lost jobs and lower wages. And I think you must be pointing to a state of affairs that hasn't been true for at least 40 years - look at the chart in [2]. I'm not interested in what may have been the case 60 years ago in post WWII boom-America, I'm interested in what the trends have been during the lifetime of the average reader here. As for self driving trucks, who told you that? Per my prior comment, we're not there yet, but it is definitely coming. Automation hasn't reached driving yet and it won't in any significant way for at least another 5 years, but as soon as the tech is ready, adoption is going to be rapid. But saying "it hasn't happened yet, so clearly it's bogus" is like building a cabin on an active volcano and saying, "they said it would erupt within the last 5 years and that didn't happen, so clearly it's not going to erupt ever". Just because a predicted timeline is incorrect does not mean the predicted event won't come to pass. [1] https://www.recode.net/2017/3/28/15094424/jobs-eliminated-new-robots-workforce-industrial https://www.recode.net/2017/3/28/15094424/jobs-eliminated-ne... [2] http://evonomics.com/productivity-is-slowing-inequality-is-growing-heres-whats-causing-it/ http://evonomics.com/productivity-is-slowing-inequality-is-g...
- ewjordan 8y ago
  A decade ago self driving trucks existed only in thoughtspace; today they're actually being built, driven, and refined. That the old estimates we're wrong doesn't mean the tech will never happen, it's almost available right now. Long haul trips are arguably the easiest to automate, since the routes are stable and easily mapped, even if the last few miles or exceptional conditions will still require human intervention (which could be remotely handled). Betting on widespread automation of trucking is probably one of the safest AI-related bets you could make right now.
wolfgke 8y ago
> 1) As has been shown time and time again, the rewards of productivity gains accrue to the owners of capital far more than to the workers who are more productive. This looks much more like the real problem to me. The solution: Make it much easier and less bureaucratic for such people to invest their money.
- smolder 8y ago
  That's not a solution unless they also decide to invest their money on terms better for the borrowers, which is not on the table, which is the actual problem. Nothing short of a philanthropic outburst by the worlds elites or some kind of truly major crisis will change the direction our trickle-up economics are sending us in. A more efficient model of investment is just a way to increase the effects of efficient investment, which is money going to the rich.

gervase 8y ago

> I hope we can agree that de facto serfdom is a bad thing. There is actually some evidence that what we currently have is already worse than serfdom [0] in many ways. I don't think this is a crisis which is about to occur, but one which has already started, is currently ongoing, and will probably get much worse. [0] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w...

rjbwork 8y ago
In serfdom, didn't the owners of the land get a certain percentage of your output?

rohit2412 8y ago

1) and 2) seem to be largely effects of a globalized eceonomy, with outsourcing and resulting inequality. Automation seems to be truly a boogie monster you can put blame on. Trains also took away long distance horse buggie jobs. They were largely automated too. And finally, if you think driverless cars are nearby, then so are completely humanoid robots who can do all the work a human can do.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
Funny you mention horses, as it is a common analogy in these discourses. The horse population actually declined as they became less necessary thanks to transportation innovations. CGP Grey explained this well: https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=212 https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=212
- adventured 8y ago
  It's the exact same thing that is going to occur with the human population. The current popular calculations for global population growth and the reduction of that growth, are wildly wrong. The reduction in growth and eventual decline is going to happen sooner and will be far more aggressive. The horses were replaced, the humans will be replaced.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >The horse population actually declined No shit. There's fewer typewriters these days too.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Everyone in the world used to be a farmer. Now, only 1% of the population in developed countries farm. This time it's different? Actually, I can agree that there had been reduction in global jobs as world gets slowly automated. But there won't be a sudden takeover of all jobs by some super sentient AI leading to mass unemployment. And neither are the current problems of inequality, debt, low wages a result of an increasing productivity, but rather increasing globalization.
sp527 8y ago

Chathamization 8y ago

You bring up important issues, but there doesn't seem to be an reason to think they are the result of automation. There have been periods in the past with higher levels of productivity growth that have corresponded with a decrease in inequality. Now we're in a period of low productivity growth corresponding with an increase in inequality. As for self driving trucks, I remember people telling me a decade ago that they would have lead to mass unemployment by now. The predictions of an impending automation crisis haven't had a great track record.

mdorazio 8y ago
Is there a reason to think they are not the result of automation? Take a look at [1] - robots brought into US factories are directly responsible for lost jobs and lower wages. And I think you must be pointing to a state of affairs that hasn't been true for at least 40 years - look at the chart in [2]. I'm not interested in what may have been the case 60 years ago in post WWII boom-America, I'm interested in what the trends have been during the lifetime of the average reader here. As for self driving trucks, who told you that? Per my prior comment, we're not there yet, but it is definitely coming. Automation hasn't reached driving yet and it won't in any significant way for at least another 5 years, but as soon as the tech is ready, adoption is going to be rapid. But saying "it hasn't happened yet, so clearly it's bogus" is like building a cabin on an active volcano and saying, "they said it would erupt within the last 5 years and that didn't happen, so clearly it's not going to erupt ever". Just because a predicted timeline is incorrect does not mean the predicted event won't come to pass. [1] https://www.recode.net/2017/3/28/15094424/jobs-eliminated-new-robots-workforce-industrial https://www.recode.net/2017/3/28/15094424/jobs-eliminated-ne... [2] http://evonomics.com/productivity-is-slowing-inequality-is-growing-heres-whats-causing-it/ http://evonomics.com/productivity-is-slowing-inequality-is-g...
ewjordan 8y ago
A decade ago self driving trucks existed only in thoughtspace; today they're actually being built, driven, and refined. That the old estimates we're wrong doesn't mean the tech will never happen, it's almost available right now. Long haul trips are arguably the easiest to automate, since the routes are stable and easily mapped, even if the last few miles or exceptional conditions will still require human intervention (which could be remotely handled). Betting on widespread automation of trucking is probably one of the safest AI-related bets you could make right now.

wolfgke 8y ago

> 1) As has been shown time and time again, the rewards of productivity gains accrue to the owners of capital far more than to the workers who are more productive. This looks much more like the real problem to me. The solution: Make it much easier and less bureaucratic for such people to invest their money.

smolder 8y ago
That's not a solution unless they also decide to invest their money on terms better for the borrowers, which is not on the table, which is the actual problem. Nothing short of a philanthropic outburst by the worlds elites or some kind of truly major crisis will change the direction our trickle-up economics are sending us in. A more efficient model of investment is just a way to increase the effects of efficient investment, which is money going to the rich.