6 ms·
Here are two scary storylines that get discussed pretty regularly here on HN: a) AI and machine learning will raise productivity so much that they will steal m
by snowwrestler 6y ago
Here are two scary storylines that get discussed pretty regularly here on HN:
a) AI and machine learning will raise productivity so much that they will steal millions of jobs from people.
b) Global population will eventually go into decline, which will crash the economy by killing growth.
But, these two stories look far less scary when considered together. In fact they seem directly complementary, although the timing is not likely to work out perfectly, so it won't necessarily be smooth sailing along the way.
- tingletech 6y agonow if we could just get the robots to pay social security
- qubex 6y agoYou jest, but the economic effects of all of this are severe. A total regression in the real-estate market (because stagnant demographics means the existing housing stock will roughly suffice or even exceed demand) will have severe effects. Basically the end to growing demand, and thus essentially an end to growth-orientated capitalism.
- jb775 6y agoMy long term prediction is that once the boomers start dying off in droves, we'll face a real estate crisis as their houses flood the market...and many less desirable neighborhoods throughout suburbia will turn into mini ghost towns.
- qubex 6y agoI come from northern Italy and during my relatively brief lifetime (length(life.qubex)>40) I’ve seen this happen to formerly exclusive “Beverly Hills”-type affluent residential areas (and un/gated communities). Enormous, cavernous hangar-sized homes that used to be worth millions of euros now struggling to sell for a couple hundred thousand.
- rwmj 6y agoYou're describing Japan, now. Large numbers of abandoned houses, towns in rural areas emptying out, and the process is accelerating. An interesting article: https://spikejapan.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/yubari-withering-into-truth/ https://spikejapan.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/yubari-withering...
- tingletech 6y agoI only half jest, but this demographic situation is one of the reasons I support liberal immigration policies.
- iso947 6y agoThat fails when every country has falling birth rates
- menybuvico 6y agoSwedish authorities did a study about this for that very reason. The conclusion was that it's unlikely that people will want to move halfway across the World only go get a job changing old peoples' diapers. Alas, the PDF seems to have been taken off-line.
- csharpminor 6y agoIt’s almost as if we should redistribute profits from the robots universally to provide some level of basic income.
- towaway423423 6y agoIt's already happening though - commodity/consumable prices are far lower in real terms today compared to the previous decades.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoFirstly that has nothing to do with redistribution. Secondly total cost of living in a major city has gone up, not down, due to rent and realestate. Sure, i can but more polypropyl, bread and stainless steel, but what good is that if i have nowhere to live.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> now if we could just get the robots to pay social security It's called “taxing capital” and we can (logically; whether we have the political will is a different question.)
- enitihas 6y agoPolitical will quickly arises if there is loud public demand for it.
- kmonsen 6y agoThat is not true in the US. What happens in the senate has low overlap with what the public wants compared with what donors/lobbyists want.
- sudosysgen 6y agoUS economic policy has an almost null correlation with public demand (and interest, really.)
- nradov 6y agoWell we can. Someone owns the robots (or owns shares in the corporation that owns the robots). Just change the tax code to make Social Security tax apply to all income, including capital gains, with no upper limit.
- zajio1am 6y agoThe reason why capital income is not subject to social isurance taxes is because it is fundamentally an insurance scheme. People who earn mostly wages need social insurance in retirement (when they would not be physically able to work), so they (have to) pay it, while people who earn mostly capital income do not need it (as capital income does not depend on personal health / fitness to work). Therefore extending social insurance taxes to capital income without extending pension payments to capital earners would be unfair. Local politicians tried something similar - remove caps on social insurance, while keeping pensions capped / strongly sublinear, and it was struck down by constitutional court. Perhaps reasonable solution would be to split pensions to tax-based UBI, and smaller contribution based 'linear' pensions.
- rayhendricks 6y agoC) We will develop anti-aging treatments due to increased funding of SENS and similar projects. Combine that with a universal basic income and robots and you get a much better picture of the future. Edit: we are also not taking into account artificial gestation methods that may be developed in the next 100 years. In 2120 it may seem as barbaric as child labor and other 19th century atrocities to actually have a woman carry through a pregnancy, not to say that religious fundamentalists will want to continue the practice.
- oblio 6y agoIf we are able to keep people alive for much, much longer but don't find a way to make their brains young and elastic again, we're going to be in for a very, very special kind of dystopia.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago“Anti-aging” implies keeping people younger, not just delaying death.
- bananaface 6y agoIf AI takes jobs, it doesn't cause wealth to be redistributed, it causes wealth to flow upwards to the person who owns the AI. That might then be redistributed, but it might also not. Whether it is or isn't is largely up to the people who have the most power. In that system, which group has the most power?
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoBut if AI is intelligent, is owning AI slavery? If an AI is self-improving, why should it have an owner? If AI improved itself, who owns the copyright?
- bananaface 6y ago"Should" doesn't matter. All that matters is how power is actually distributed.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThats what the French aristocracy said, and eventually they found their head on a pike.
- bananaface 6y agoSure, because the populace had more power than they thought, and they organised. It didn't matter how rich the aristocracy were, they couldn't buy enough loyalty to defend themselves. Down the line you probably will be able to buy a robot army, and robots aren't squishy.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoIn democratic societies the majority decides how resources are distributed. If they can understand where their interests actually lie it shouldn’t be a problem.
- bananaface 6y ago
- snidane 6y agoOr consider the alternative scenario where population keeps declining but technological advancement doesn't materialize. Which for AI and machine learning could happen soon with another 'AI winter' after people realize only narrow set of opportunities to deploy it. The stability of society depends on technological progress and more children born in each new generation. Once this global Ponzi scheme reverses there is an incentive to manufacture lies about massive technological progress ahead of us. See buzzwords such as autonomous cars, industry 4.0 or quantum computing.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoEven with another AI winter I can’t see that automation isn’t going to continue for a long time.
- bob33212 6y agoAI is just one piece of increased productivity. Even without AGI there are paths that could lead to 3x productivity faster than the population would go down by 66%. There are other issues with an older age distribution which cannot be fixed by productivity though. There could be an oversupply of 5 bedroom homes for example.