When I read articles like this I can't help but question my own intuitions since they are so opposed to this author's thinking. Firstly, his suggestion on the

When I read articles like this I can't help but question my own intuitions since they are so opposed to this author's thinking. Firstly, his suggestion on the worker shortage and the anecdotal $1000 sign on bonus at some local McDonalds. These seem more tailored to a narrative interpretation of the state of the world that is formed to the author's own bias. I look at my own small town homeless and drug addicted population and consider the changes in the last 5-10 years on that front. I consider the insane rise in the cost of home ownership and the massive rise in rental costs locally. I just don't see $1000 signing bonuses at fast food restaurants as a sign of some latent demand for labor. It feels like the author is using a single anecdote and a narrow reading of a few graphs to support a world view that I don't see existing in my own experience. Then he says: "We are quickly reaching the limits of current AI". You mean the AI that surpassed most informed peoples expectations on AI capability less than one year ago? I feel like I'm in 1996 reading an article about the Internet where someone gives some list of reasons why the Internet is reaching its limits. And just as an aside, this author uses the term "explosive" especially in the context of "explosive growth" over and over. It may be that his target market just isn't me. The narrative and analysis probably hits home for a particular set of capitalist minded investor class individuals. Perhaps they really do see North America as having a huge labor shortage and that we just need the "right" kinds of automation so we don't all feel so bad about the continuing displacement of workers. As long as they keep seeing "explosive growth" in the value of their assets.