5 ms·

Historically, people have been pretty good at predicting the effects of new technologies on existing jobs. But quite bad at predicting the new jobs / careers /

Historically, people have been pretty good at predicting the effects of new technologies on existing jobs. But quite bad at predicting the new jobs / careers / industries that are eventually created with those technologies. This is why free market economies create more wealth over time than centrally planned economies: the free market allows more people to try seemingly crazy ideas, and is faster to recognize good ideas and reallocate resources toward them. In the absence of reliable prediction, quick reaction is what wins. Anyway, even if AI does end up “destroying” tons of existing white collar jobs, that does not necessarily imply mass unemployment. But it’s such a common inference that it has its own pejorative: Luddite. And the flip side of Ludddism is what we see from AI boosters now: invoking a massive impact on current jobs as a shorthand to create the impression of massive capability. It’s a form of marketing, as the CNN piece says.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
beepbooptheory 1y ago
So, we are doomed to work forever, just maybe different jobs?
- absurdo 1y ago
  Basically yeah. You live in a world of layered servitude and, short of a financial windfall that hoists you up for some time, you’re basically guaranteed to work your entire life, and grow old, frail and poor. This isn’t a joke, it’s reality for many people that’s hidden from us to keep us deluded. Similar to my other mini-rant, I don’t have any valid answers to the problem at hand. Just acknowledging how fucked things are for humanity.
  - aianus 1y ago
    No, it's quite easy to make $1mm in a rich country and move to a poorer country and chill if you so desire.
    - satvikpendem 1y ago
      It's not that easy, as in, you can make the money but the logistics of moving and living in another country are always harder than expected, both culturally and bureaucratically.
      - Johanx64 1y ago
        >logistics of moving and living in another country are always harder than expected, both culturally and bureaucratically. You know what's hard? Moving from a poor "shithole" to a wealthy country, with expensive accommodation, where a month of rent is something you'd save up months for. Knowing and displaying (faking really) 'correct' cultural status signifiers to secure a good job. And all the associated stress, etc. Moving the other direction to a low-cost-of-living or poor shithole country is extremely easy in comparison with a fat stack of resources. You literally don't have to worry about anything in the least.
        eastbound 1y ago
        Apart from the tax office suing you in oblivion because the startup you’ve founded is now worth 10x its revenue, so you need to pay 40% CGT with only 1/10th the income (at least that’s the French exit tax). So basically once you are rich, you have to choose to leave most of it on the table to go to a poor country.
        bravesoul2 1y ago
        If you have an early startup valued based on vibes, and they tax you on those vibes (do they... source...?) then you are not rich. A xoogler who saved 500k post tax is arguably richer in that scenario.
        eastbound 1y ago
        All companies are worth more than their revenue. It’s not vibes, it’s just how it works. Same goes for employees with stock options in USA: They get taxed on CGT every year until they sell, for money they don’t have yet. Same goes for development costs: A change in the US tax code circe 2016 made that development costs were assumed to be an investment over 3 years, so if you have 1m$ sales and 1m$ costs in the first year, the IRS only counts 333k$ real costs and you own them tax on the 666k$ revenue. It’s a classic problem in capital. So yes, a 300k€ revenue means you are valued at a multiple of that and owe tax.
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  Of course. I mean this has never not been the case unless you are independently wealthy. Work always expands, that's why it's a fallacy to think that if we just had more productivity gains that we'd work half the time; no, there are always new things to do tomorrow that were not possible yesterday.
- 77pt77 1y ago
  Just like the Red Queen. You have to always keep on moving just to stay in the same place.
tw04 1y ago
But also it potentially means mass unemployment and we have literally no plan in place if that happens beyond complete societal collapse. Even if you think all the naysayers are “luddites”, do you really think it’s a great idea to have no backup plan beyond “whupps we all die or just go back to the Stone Age”?
- ccorcos 1y ago
  > do you really think it’s a great idea to have no backup plan What makes you think people haven’t made back up plans? Or are you saying government needs to do it for us?
  - argomo 1y ago
    Ah yes the old "let's make individuals responsible for solving societal problems" bit. Nevermind that the state is sometimes the only entity capable of addressing the situation at scale.
    - ccorcos 1y ago
      Yes, I believe individuals should take responsibility for themselves and their future prosperity. We all know what happens when you don’t… History has shown us quite clearly what happens if governments, and not individuals, are responsible for finding employment.
      - sailingparrot 1y ago
        I fail to understand what it is you are suggesting a 20 something year old is supposed to do to prepare their backup plan. They should all just find a way be set for life within the next 3 years, is this your proposal ?
        ccorcos 1y ago
        You’re supposed to learn skills that others are willing to pay you for.
nopinsight 1y ago
My thesis is that this could lead to a booming market for “pink-collar” service jobs. A significant latent demand exists for more and better services in developed countries. For instance, upper-middle-class and middle-class individuals in countries like India and Thailand often have access to better services in restaurants, hotels, and households compared to their counterparts in rich nations. Elderly care and health services are two particularly important sectors where society could benefit from allocating a larger workforce. Many others will have roles to play building, maintaining, and supervising robots. Despite rapid advances, they will not be as dexterous, reliable, and generally capable as adult humans for many years to come. (See: Moravec's paradox).
digdugdirk 1y ago
More people need to understand the actual history of the luddites. The real issue was the usage of mechanized equipment to overwhelm an entire sector of the economy of the day - destroying the labor value of a vast swath of craftspeople and knocking them down a peg on the social ladder. Those people who were able to get work were now subject to a much more dangerous workplace and forced into a more rigid legalized employer/employee structure, which was a relatively new "corporate innovation" in the grand scheme of things. This, of course, allowed/required the state to be on the hook for enforcement of the workplace contract, and you can bet that both public and private police forces were used to enforce that contract with violence. Certainly something to think about for all the users on this message board who are undoubtedly more highly skilled craftspeople than most, and would never be caught up in a mass economic displacement driven by the introduction of a new technological innovation. At the very least, it's worth a skim through the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
csomar 1y ago
I think the takeaway is that interest rates have to be maintained relatively high as the ZIRP era has showed that it breaks the free market. There is a reason why the Trump wants to lower the interest rate. Sure it is painful but a ZIRP economy doesn't listen to the end consumers. No reason to innovate and create crazy ideas if you have plenty of income.
madaxe_again 1y ago
When steam engines came along, an awful lot of people argued that being able to pump water from mines faster, while inarguably useful, would not have any broad economical impact. Only madmen saw the Newcomen engine and thought “ah, railways!”. Those madmen became extraordinarily wealthy. Vast categories of work were eliminated, others were created. I think this situation is very similar in terms of the underestimation of scope of application, however differs in the availability of new job categories - but then that may be me underestimating new categories which are as yet as unforeseen as stokers and train conductors once were.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

beepbooptheory 1y ago

So, we are doomed to work forever, just maybe different jobs?

absurdo 1y ago
Basically yeah. You live in a world of layered servitude and, short of a financial windfall that hoists you up for some time, you’re basically guaranteed to work your entire life, and grow old, frail and poor. This isn’t a joke, it’s reality for many people that’s hidden from us to keep us deluded. Similar to my other mini-rant, I don’t have any valid answers to the problem at hand. Just acknowledging how fucked things are for humanity.
- aianus 1y ago
  No, it's quite easy to make $1mm in a rich country and move to a poorer country and chill if you so desire.
  - satvikpendem 1y ago
    It's not that easy, as in, you can make the money but the logistics of moving and living in another country are always harder than expected, both culturally and bureaucratically.
    - Johanx64 1y ago
      >logistics of moving and living in another country are always harder than expected, both culturally and bureaucratically. You know what's hard? Moving from a poor "shithole" to a wealthy country, with expensive accommodation, where a month of rent is something you'd save up months for. Knowing and displaying (faking really) 'correct' cultural status signifiers to secure a good job. And all the associated stress, etc. Moving the other direction to a low-cost-of-living or poor shithole country is extremely easy in comparison with a fat stack of resources. You literally don't have to worry about anything in the least.
      - eastbound 1y ago
        Apart from the tax office suing you in oblivion because the startup you’ve founded is now worth 10x its revenue, so you need to pay 40% CGT with only 1/10th the income (at least that’s the French exit tax). So basically once you are rich, you have to choose to leave most of it on the table to go to a poor country.
        bravesoul2 1y ago
        If you have an early startup valued based on vibes, and they tax you on those vibes (do they... source...?) then you are not rich. A xoogler who saved 500k post tax is arguably richer in that scenario.
        eastbound 1y ago
        All companies are worth more than their revenue. It’s not vibes, it’s just how it works. Same goes for employees with stock options in USA: They get taxed on CGT every year until they sell, for money they don’t have yet. Same goes for development costs: A change in the US tax code circe 2016 made that development costs were assumed to be an investment over 3 years, so if you have 1m$ sales and 1m$ costs in the first year, the IRS only counts 333k$ real costs and you own them tax on the 666k$ revenue. It’s a classic problem in capital. So yes, a 300k€ revenue means you are valued at a multiple of that and owe tax.
satvikpendem 1y ago
Of course. I mean this has never not been the case unless you are independently wealthy. Work always expands, that's why it's a fallacy to think that if we just had more productivity gains that we'd work half the time; no, there are always new things to do tomorrow that were not possible yesterday.
77pt77 1y ago
Just like the Red Queen. You have to always keep on moving just to stay in the same place.

tw04 1y ago

But also it potentially means mass unemployment and we have literally no plan in place if that happens beyond complete societal collapse. Even if you think all the naysayers are “luddites”, do you really think it’s a great idea to have no backup plan beyond “whupps we all die or just go back to the Stone Age”?

ccorcos 1y ago
> do you really think it’s a great idea to have no backup plan What makes you think people haven’t made back up plans? Or are you saying government needs to do it for us?
- argomo 1y ago
  Ah yes the old "let's make individuals responsible for solving societal problems" bit. Nevermind that the state is sometimes the only entity capable of addressing the situation at scale.
  - ccorcos 1y ago
    Yes, I believe individuals should take responsibility for themselves and their future prosperity. We all know what happens when you don’t… History has shown us quite clearly what happens if governments, and not individuals, are responsible for finding employment.
    - sailingparrot 1y ago
      I fail to understand what it is you are suggesting a 20 something year old is supposed to do to prepare their backup plan. They should all just find a way be set for life within the next 3 years, is this your proposal ?
      - ccorcos 1y ago
        You’re supposed to learn skills that others are willing to pay you for.

nopinsight 1y ago

My thesis is that this could lead to a booming market for “pink-collar” service jobs. A significant latent demand exists for more and better services in developed countries. For instance, upper-middle-class and middle-class individuals in countries like India and Thailand often have access to better services in restaurants, hotels, and households compared to their counterparts in rich nations. Elderly care and health services are two particularly important sectors where society could benefit from allocating a larger workforce. Many others will have roles to play building, maintaining, and supervising robots. Despite rapid advances, they will not be as dexterous, reliable, and generally capable as adult humans for many years to come. (See: Moravec's paradox).

digdugdirk 1y ago

More people need to understand the actual history of the luddites. The real issue was the usage of mechanized equipment to overwhelm an entire sector of the economy of the day - destroying the labor value of a vast swath of craftspeople and knocking them down a peg on the social ladder. Those people who were able to get work were now subject to a much more dangerous workplace and forced into a more rigid legalized employer/employee structure, which was a relatively new "corporate innovation" in the grand scheme of things. This, of course, allowed/required the state to be on the hook for enforcement of the workplace contract, and you can bet that both public and private police forces were used to enforce that contract with violence. Certainly something to think about for all the users on this message board who are undoubtedly more highly skilled craftspeople than most, and would never be caught up in a mass economic displacement driven by the introduction of a new technological innovation. At the very least, it's worth a skim through the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

csomar 1y ago

I think the takeaway is that interest rates have to be maintained relatively high as the ZIRP era has showed that it breaks the free market. There is a reason why the Trump wants to lower the interest rate. Sure it is painful but a ZIRP economy doesn't listen to the end consumers. No reason to innovate and create crazy ideas if you have plenty of income.

madaxe_again 1y ago

When steam engines came along, an awful lot of people argued that being able to pump water from mines faster, while inarguably useful, would not have any broad economical impact. Only madmen saw the Newcomen engine and thought “ah, railways!”. Those madmen became extraordinarily wealthy. Vast categories of work were eliminated, others were created. I think this situation is very similar in terms of the underestimation of scope of application, however differs in the availability of new job categories - but then that may be me underestimating new categories which are as yet as unforeseen as stokers and train conductors once were.