9 ms·

> They'd work So less jobs for young people.

by sumedh 5y ago

novok 5y ago
We also have to take care of old people, and the less we have to do that for the period of their lives, the cheaper everything could be because there are less dependents to support. A countries economy is often reflected in their dependent / non-dependent ratio, and the less non-dependents you have, the better economies perform!
raylad 5y ago
Jobs are not the sole way to distribute resources. In fact they are a rather recent way (in human history) to do so. And they're going away anyway soon enough, as automation develops.
- cellis 5y ago
  Great, a gigantic underclass of people forever stuck with no upward mobility!
  - TOMDM 5y ago
    So, not much has changed?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Yes, what will we do without the famous upward mobility of the factory worker? Seriously though, the majority of humans never see material upward mobility in their lifetimes, and a world without mandatory low-wage jobs per se isn't necessarily a world without upward mobility.
    - cellis 5y ago
      A world without mobility is one without agency...and humanity has been defined by agency. Without it, we might as well not exist, not as humans anyway.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        I agree, I’m just saying that upward mobility will continue to exist but it may just look different.
cblconfederate 5y ago
or less work for everyone
ColFrancis 5y ago
Jobs shouldn't be a limited resource.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Jobs creating wagon wheels are a limited resource. As humans are able to automate activities that span the creation of everything we find valuable, from resource collection to manufacture to transportation to design to art, that necessarily limits the economic efficiency of using humans for labor. The last 3 years have demonstrated that creative tasks are highly susceptible to automation, with most artistic automation approaching or exceeding human performance as proofs of concept. The next decades will see an ever decreasing landscape of activities where humans are more effective than software. Jobs are endeavors defined around the exchange of money for labor. It does not make sense to pay more money for less effective labor - i.e. if I can pay $30k usd for a burger flipper robot, I won't have to pay for 2 full time burger flipper jobs. It makes no sense to hire people for labor that can be automated. We're a long ways away from being able to automate everything, but the trend is clear. Jobs don't make sense under our current technological path. We either have to eliminate progress in that direction and artificially enforce a human preference job efficiency limit so as to maintain a "sufficient" number of jobs, or start exploring new economic models that let us transition to post-scarcity economics. We are, however, going to see a time where anything humans can do, machines will do better. Using humans will be inefficient, and companies will be out competed if they don't automate. We can either prepare for that and try to make things fair, or assume new jobs will arise that will make meaningful enterprises available to people through innovation and novel opportunities that haven't yet been conceived. It seems clear to me that the latter is basically invention of make work, and we need to prepare for post scarcity. We don't need agi. We have Moore's law and "good enough" algorithms to achieve human parity performance. We should figure out a better measure of the value of human time than jobs and employment.
  - ChainOfFools 5y ago
    Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get these robots to pay your union dues? Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?
dennis_jeeves 5y ago
>So less jobs for young people. They can live in their parent's basement! ( rule for parent =we make you young, in turn you house your brat in the basement) By seriously, raylad's and cblconfederate's comment are very pertinent.
arcticbull 5y ago
(a) In the current economic model jobs are simply not a limited resource. For instance, immigration creates jobs because among other things, you need more resources to sustain more people. (b) In the future, there will be more humans than jobs anyways thanks to automation and this is a problem we are going to have to face one way or another. Social contract will change, and the economy will need to be refactored commensurately.
BurningFrog 5y ago
This is a deep misunderstanding of what jobs are. They're not "things" that exist in a limited supply. You can think of them as relationships between people. When population increases, no one worries that society will "run out" of friendships or marriages. Jobs work the same way.
- sumedh 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood how jobs work. They do exist in a limited supply. When a factory closes down and outsources all the jobs in a town, your job goes away. When a robot starts doing your job, you are not needed anymore for that job. People in ivory towers expect that you should easily retrain and find new jobs that does not happen for the average joe. When an immigrant is willing to do your job for less money or less safety, you dont get that job unless you are willing to compromise. Now with all this you are going to have older people not retire then you are reducing the job pool for younger folks. > Jobs work the same way. In reality smart politicians can tap into the fear and frustration of average folks when good paying jobs run out and they promise they will bring back jobs, so voters vote for them.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    > They do exist in a limited supply. When a factory closes down and outsources all the jobs in a town, your job goes away. I should have said "fixed number". The US population is now twice as big as 1955. If the number of jobs had stayed fixed since then, unemployment would now be at least 50%. This is clearly not true, which disproves the "fixed number of jobs" theory.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > This is clearly not true, which disproves the "fixed number of jobs" theory. Not sure why you are disproving your own theory. Perhaps you just missed the point I am trying to make.
- hsn915 5y ago
  Actually they do. Without naming names, let's assume two populations, A and B. A-Females are willing to marry B-Males, but B-Females are not willing to marry A-Males. This creates lots of abundance for B-Males and lots of scarcity for A-Makes. As for jobs, in theory they can always be created a new. But in practice there are 1) very few people who can create jobs 2) external forces that might prevent new jobs from being created

> They'd work So less jobs for young people.

by sumedh 5y ago

> They'd work So less jobs for young people.

We also have to take care of old people, and the less we have to do that for the period of their lives, the cheaper everything could be because there are less dependents to support. A countries economy is often reflected in their dependent / non-dependent ratio, and the less non-dependents you have, the better economies perform!

raylad 5y ago

Jobs are not the sole way to distribute resources. In fact they are a rather recent way (in human history) to do so. And they're going away anyway soon enough, as automation develops.

cellis 5y ago
Great, a gigantic underclass of people forever stuck with no upward mobility!
- TOMDM 5y ago
  So, not much has changed?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Yes, what will we do without the famous upward mobility of the factory worker? Seriously though, the majority of humans never see material upward mobility in their lifetimes, and a world without mandatory low-wage jobs per se isn't necessarily a world without upward mobility.
  - cellis 5y ago
    A world without mobility is one without agency...and humanity has been defined by agency. Without it, we might as well not exist, not as humans anyway.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      I agree, I’m just saying that upward mobility will continue to exist but it may just look different.

cblconfederate 5y ago

or less work for everyone

ColFrancis 5y ago

Jobs shouldn't be a limited resource.

robbedpeter 5y ago
Jobs creating wagon wheels are a limited resource. As humans are able to automate activities that span the creation of everything we find valuable, from resource collection to manufacture to transportation to design to art, that necessarily limits the economic efficiency of using humans for labor. The last 3 years have demonstrated that creative tasks are highly susceptible to automation, with most artistic automation approaching or exceeding human performance as proofs of concept. The next decades will see an ever decreasing landscape of activities where humans are more effective than software. Jobs are endeavors defined around the exchange of money for labor. It does not make sense to pay more money for less effective labor - i.e. if I can pay $30k usd for a burger flipper robot, I won't have to pay for 2 full time burger flipper jobs. It makes no sense to hire people for labor that can be automated. We're a long ways away from being able to automate everything, but the trend is clear. Jobs don't make sense under our current technological path. We either have to eliminate progress in that direction and artificially enforce a human preference job efficiency limit so as to maintain a "sufficient" number of jobs, or start exploring new economic models that let us transition to post-scarcity economics. We are, however, going to see a time where anything humans can do, machines will do better. Using humans will be inefficient, and companies will be out competed if they don't automate. We can either prepare for that and try to make things fair, or assume new jobs will arise that will make meaningful enterprises available to people through innovation and novel opportunities that haven't yet been conceived. It seems clear to me that the latter is basically invention of make work, and we need to prepare for post scarcity. We don't need agi. We have Moore's law and "good enough" algorithms to achieve human parity performance. We should figure out a better measure of the value of human time than jobs and employment.
- ChainOfFools 5y ago
  Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get these robots to pay your union dues? Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?

dennis_jeeves 5y ago

>So less jobs for young people. They can live in their parent's basement! ( rule for parent =we make you young, in turn you house your brat in the basement) By seriously, raylad's and cblconfederate's comment are very pertinent.

arcticbull 5y ago

(a) In the current economic model jobs are simply not a limited resource. For instance, immigration creates jobs because among other things, you need more resources to sustain more people. (b) In the future, there will be more humans than jobs anyways thanks to automation and this is a problem we are going to have to face one way or another. Social contract will change, and the economy will need to be refactored commensurately.

BurningFrog 5y ago

This is a deep misunderstanding of what jobs are. They're not "things" that exist in a limited supply. You can think of them as relationships between people. When population increases, no one worries that society will "run out" of friendships or marriages. Jobs work the same way.

sumedh 5y ago
I think you misunderstood how jobs work. They do exist in a limited supply. When a factory closes down and outsources all the jobs in a town, your job goes away. When a robot starts doing your job, you are not needed anymore for that job. People in ivory towers expect that you should easily retrain and find new jobs that does not happen for the average joe. When an immigrant is willing to do your job for less money or less safety, you dont get that job unless you are willing to compromise. Now with all this you are going to have older people not retire then you are reducing the job pool for younger folks. > Jobs work the same way. In reality smart politicians can tap into the fear and frustration of average folks when good paying jobs run out and they promise they will bring back jobs, so voters vote for them.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  > They do exist in a limited supply. When a factory closes down and outsources all the jobs in a town, your job goes away. I should have said "fixed number". The US population is now twice as big as 1955. If the number of jobs had stayed fixed since then, unemployment would now be at least 50%. This is clearly not true, which disproves the "fixed number of jobs" theory.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    > This is clearly not true, which disproves the "fixed number of jobs" theory. Not sure why you are disproving your own theory. Perhaps you just missed the point I am trying to make.
hsn915 5y ago
Actually they do. Without naming names, let's assume two populations, A and B. A-Females are willing to marry B-Males, but B-Females are not willing to marry A-Males. This creates lots of abundance for B-Males and lots of scarcity for A-Makes. As for jobs, in theory they can always be created a new. But in practice there are 1) very few people who can create jobs 2) external forces that might prevent new jobs from being created