6 ms·

Just because there are new jobs doesn't mean the people whose jobs were automated out of existence will be able to take them. This is the whole "teach truckers

Just because there are new jobs doesn't mean the people whose jobs were automated out of existence will be able to take them. This is the whole "teach truckers to write code" thing from back when people thought the next wave of automation would be self-driving, rather than art.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> Just because there are new jobs doesn't mean the people whose jobs were automated out of existence will be able to take them. Yes it does, because those are the people whose labor will be available. They'll take whatever jobs they're qualified for, which may lower wages in those occupations until the lower price increases demand or reduces supply by driving anyone currently in those occupations who is qualified for another job into the other job. The change isn't necessarily Pareto optimal. There can be people who are worse off because the amount their cost of living went down was less than the amount their wages went down. But for most people it will be the opposite, because the change is an increase in productivity. You get more production with less labor, so you on average need to do less labor to meet your cost of living.
- Tanjreeve 4y ago
  Outside of undergraduate economics 101 textbooks Labour is not perfectly fungible. - People have aptitudes, especially for creative work - Changing trades requires training/education which in itself requires capital - for most people their brains are less adaptable at older ages. Which worsens the other two effects.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > Outside of undergraduate economics 101 textbooks Labour is not perfectly fungible. It wasn't claimed to be. That's why people whose skills are now in lower demand may make less money than other people. But that doesn't mean they can't find jobs.
- jonathankoren 4y ago
  > You get more production with less labor, so you on average need to do less labor to meet your cost of living. Citation Needed. This isn’t how it works out in practice though. If the predictions of the 1950s were to come true, we’d all be working 10 hours a week and bringing in the same wages. They weren’t wrong though. Efficiency did go up. It’s just that these efficiencies were never passed on to workers. Instead you’re now 3x productive, but for less money. That’s a pay cut. The same thing happens if/when AI automates us all. We won’t become unemployed, because people like pmarca are scared to death of people with the time and energy to be mad about the raw deal they’ve been given. So instead, we’ll all get paid less, while working longer in more bullshit jobs.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35027583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35027583 You're ascribing the evils of market concentration to automation. Automation isn't why housing and higher education are so much more expensive now than they were.
    - jonathankoren 4y ago
      Yeah, I saw that post too, but didn’t want to pile on every one of your facile economic takes. You’re right, automation isn’t why housing and education are more expensive now. The increase of those is direct result of government policy choices encouraged by the voters. For housing, were taking zoning laws, and public objection laws. Higher education tuition increases for public universities is directly tied to cuts in government support for said government institutions. But let’s get back to the topic at hand, whether or not benefits of productivity increases are felt by workers, or if it’s primarily concentrated with the already wealthy. The answer is clear. The benefits are concentrated with the few. Sure prices drop, but so do wages and overall wealth by the majority. This isn’t even a controversial take. Government statistics have been tracking this for 40 years. You’re asking questions like they’re some great unknowable, but not only is this common knowledge, but just an google image search away.
      - 4y ago

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> Just because there are new jobs doesn't mean the people whose jobs were automated out of existence will be able to take them. Yes it does, because those are the people whose labor will be available. They'll take whatever jobs they're qualified for, which may lower wages in those occupations until the lower price increases demand or reduces supply by driving anyone currently in those occupations who is qualified for another job into the other job. The change isn't necessarily Pareto optimal. There can be people who are worse off because the amount their cost of living went down was less than the amount their wages went down. But for most people it will be the opposite, because the change is an increase in productivity. You get more production with less labor, so you on average need to do less labor to meet your cost of living.

Tanjreeve 4y ago
Outside of undergraduate economics 101 textbooks Labour is not perfectly fungible. - People have aptitudes, especially for creative work - Changing trades requires training/education which in itself requires capital - for most people their brains are less adaptable at older ages. Which worsens the other two effects.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > Outside of undergraduate economics 101 textbooks Labour is not perfectly fungible. It wasn't claimed to be. That's why people whose skills are now in lower demand may make less money than other people. But that doesn't mean they can't find jobs.
jonathankoren 4y ago
> You get more production with less labor, so you on average need to do less labor to meet your cost of living. Citation Needed. This isn’t how it works out in practice though. If the predictions of the 1950s were to come true, we’d all be working 10 hours a week and bringing in the same wages. They weren’t wrong though. Efficiency did go up. It’s just that these efficiencies were never passed on to workers. Instead you’re now 3x productive, but for less money. That’s a pay cut. The same thing happens if/when AI automates us all. We won’t become unemployed, because people like pmarca are scared to death of people with the time and energy to be mad about the raw deal they’ve been given. So instead, we’ll all get paid less, while working longer in more bullshit jobs.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35027583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35027583 You're ascribing the evils of market concentration to automation. Automation isn't why housing and higher education are so much more expensive now than they were.
  - jonathankoren 4y ago
    Yeah, I saw that post too, but didn’t want to pile on every one of your facile economic takes. You’re right, automation isn’t why housing and education are more expensive now. The increase of those is direct result of government policy choices encouraged by the voters. For housing, were taking zoning laws, and public objection laws. Higher education tuition increases for public universities is directly tied to cuts in government support for said government institutions. But let’s get back to the topic at hand, whether or not benefits of productivity increases are felt by workers, or if it’s primarily concentrated with the already wealthy. The answer is clear. The benefits are concentrated with the few. Sure prices drop, but so do wages and overall wealth by the majority. This isn’t even a controversial take. Government statistics have been tracking this for 40 years. You’re asking questions like they’re some great unknowable, but not only is this common knowledge, but just an google image search away.
    - 4y ago