5 ms·

I believe this is the second graph you should have used: The labor force participation rate. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/t

I believe this is the second graph you should have used: The labor force participation rate. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 Unless you believe more people are wealthy enough to live fine without needing to work (the opposite seems to be true[1]), what matters is not the employment rate, but labor participation rate. That's not even considering whether average wages for those who are employed are are keeping pace with rising living costs. The good news is that, eventually, automation will reduce living costs. The bad news is that fewer people will have jobs enabling them to afford even those reduced living costs. From the BLS website glossary: '"Productivity": A measure of economic efficiency that shows how effectively economic inputs are converted into goods and services.' I don't see why productivity as an economic measure would increase in the early stages of a process where narrow AI and robotics start to take over human jobs. Until costs come down, when AI software and robotics becomes more generic, and standardized, and adopted outside of narrow industries, the economic effects won't be as dramatic. The only escape from narrow AI and robots taking human jobs is the creation of more bullshit jobs (see: Graeber), or genuinely new job sectors, but I have yet to read any compelling predictions of new job sectors that will employ large numbers of people and can't be automated. Creator jobs? How many people on youtube, or patreon, or self-publishing books, earn even minimum wage from the time they put in? If you dumped 1 million, or 10 million, additional people onto those platforms and told them their new job is to create full time, how many of those additional people could make a living wage, or even minimum wage, for the time they spend? Service jobs? While the wealthy (let's say, upper middle class and above) might want human waiters, human voice support on the telephone, etc., I think that's vastly overplayed as an opportunity for human labor. I don't think that many wealthy people would prefer to deal with humans over good AI, and I don't think it would create that many service jobs even if wealthy people did mostly prefer to pay a premium for human service. [1] With increasing numbers of people working beyond retirement age, more debt, and more couples both working (I have nothing against that, I'm just pointing out the labor statistical reality that families' standard of living requires that more, now).

knuththetruth 8y ago
>The good news is that, eventually, automation will reduce living costs. I’m not sure even this is true because of the degree of hyper-financialization and rent-seeking in areas like housing and healthcare. For example, with housing, even assuming we clear the zoning barrier, you still run into the problem of housing being an investment vehicle for global Capital. They’ll let it sit vacant or be consolidated into rental conglomerates in exchange for a relatively secure asset with marginal returns. It’s possible that systems in Europe with a greater degree of decommodification will benefit from automation (e.g. easier to build public housing and easier to administer socialized medicine), but this seems unlikely to hold true in the American context, barring some massive political change.
- Retric 8y ago
  Leaving the US is already a great option for many people. So, the global response to automation is arguably more important than what any specific location does.
Chathamization 8y ago
> I believe this is the second graph you should have used: The labor force participation rate. Here's labor force participation for prime age workers[1] (which is similar to the prime age Employment-Population Ratio I posted above). The problem with your graph is that it's including everyone 16 and over - so baby boomer retirement makes an impact, as does the ACA (college students not working a job for benefits because they're covered by their parents, people who are retiring earlier because they don't have to wait for Medicare). Though it's worth noting that even if, for some reason, you wanted to look at everyone over 16, the participation rate is still well above anywhere it was in the 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's. If you're looking at prime age, we're only a couple of percents below the highs in the 90's (and much higher than other periods). > but I have yet to read any compelling predictions of new job sectors that will employ large numbers of people and can't be automated. I'm always confused by this argument. Practically every day on HN there are articles about problems that it would be great if more people were working on. Replication crisis? Aging infrastructure? Global warming? Cancer research? Environmental destruction? Food scarcity? Documentation and bug hunting in software? Taking care of frameworks? Early childhood education? Heck, even beyond all the problems on Earth, there are plenty of people who want to work on things like sending people to Mars. I just can't fathom how people can look at the world and say, "Yep, we don't really need to do anything more than what we're already doing." [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
- Izkata 8y ago
  > I'm always confused by this argument. Practically every day on HN there are articles about problems that it would be great if more people were working on. Replication crisis? Aging infrastructure? Global warming? Cancer research? Environmental destruction? Food scarcity? Documentation and bug hunting in software? Taking care of frameworks? Early childhood education? Heck, even beyond all the problems on Earth, there are plenty of people who want to work on things like sending people to Mars. Almost everything you listed there requires high skill/education levels. What about service workers/low-skill jobs (y'know, the things that would be replaced by automaton)? I'm pretty sure they're the people GP was talking about.
- losvedir 8y ago

knuththetruth 8y ago

>The good news is that, eventually, automation will reduce living costs. I’m not sure even this is true because of the degree of hyper-financialization and rent-seeking in areas like housing and healthcare. For example, with housing, even assuming we clear the zoning barrier, you still run into the problem of housing being an investment vehicle for global Capital. They’ll let it sit vacant or be consolidated into rental conglomerates in exchange for a relatively secure asset with marginal returns. It’s possible that systems in Europe with a greater degree of decommodification will benefit from automation (e.g. easier to build public housing and easier to administer socialized medicine), but this seems unlikely to hold true in the American context, barring some massive political change.

Retric 8y ago
Leaving the US is already a great option for many people. So, the global response to automation is arguably more important than what any specific location does.

Chathamization 8y ago

> I believe this is the second graph you should have used: The labor force participation rate. Here's labor force participation for prime age workers[1] (which is similar to the prime age Employment-Population Ratio I posted above). The problem with your graph is that it's including everyone 16 and over - so baby boomer retirement makes an impact, as does the ACA (college students not working a job for benefits because they're covered by their parents, people who are retiring earlier because they don't have to wait for Medicare). Though it's worth noting that even if, for some reason, you wanted to look at everyone over 16, the participation rate is still well above anywhere it was in the 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's. If you're looking at prime age, we're only a couple of percents below the highs in the 90's (and much higher than other periods). > but I have yet to read any compelling predictions of new job sectors that will employ large numbers of people and can't be automated. I'm always confused by this argument. Practically every day on HN there are articles about problems that it would be great if more people were working on. Replication crisis? Aging infrastructure? Global warming? Cancer research? Environmental destruction? Food scarcity? Documentation and bug hunting in software? Taking care of frameworks? Early childhood education? Heck, even beyond all the problems on Earth, there are plenty of people who want to work on things like sending people to Mars. I just can't fathom how people can look at the world and say, "Yep, we don't really need to do anything more than what we're already doing." [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

Izkata 8y ago
> I'm always confused by this argument. Practically every day on HN there are articles about problems that it would be great if more people were working on. Replication crisis? Aging infrastructure? Global warming? Cancer research? Environmental destruction? Food scarcity? Documentation and bug hunting in software? Taking care of frameworks? Early childhood education? Heck, even beyond all the problems on Earth, there are plenty of people who want to work on things like sending people to Mars. Almost everything you listed there requires high skill/education levels. What about service workers/low-skill jobs (y'know, the things that would be replaced by automaton)? I'm pretty sure they're the people GP was talking about.
losvedir 8y ago