8 ms·

MIT Economist David Autor on the Future of Work and Polanyi's Paradox

mrfusion 12y ago
Offtopic but is there a way to load these kind of one-off podcasts onto an iPhone?
- mrow84 12y ago
  You can download the episode, without subscribing, from the EconTalk "page", or whatever it's called, in the iTunes store.
- jimmyswimmy 12y ago
  Not the answer to your question but I listen to this show from time to time using Antennapod, which is in the fdroid repository for Android phones. Works pretty well. The podcast is listed in one of the guides (gpodder.net) and is a searchable result or you can add the RSS feed directly from the econtalk site.
vacri 12y ago
Unfortunate to discover that this new-to-me paradox isn't a paradox at all. "Some things we know/understand can't be written down [easily], thus we know more than we can explicitly explain". It's not counter-intuitive at all, and doesn't oppose itself in any way.
- drcode 12y ago
  The paradox is the part where things that are hard to write down (i.e. do laundry, trim your fingernails, make a sandwich) seem extremely easy and seem like the first things machines would have taken over, whereas things that are easy to write down (playing chess, arming nuclear missles, diagnose a tumor) seem very hard but are relatively easy for a computer to do. (And yes, it still doesn't qualify as a paradox, in the mathematical sense.)
  - forthefuture 12y ago
    I don't know, the first group of things is wholly physical, and the second group is wholly digital. It's incomparably easier to build things (and rightfully so) that never touch the physical world because you don't have to build any physical hardware manufacturing infrastructure.
- bertil 12y ago
  As someone who studyied Polyani intensively, I was surprised by that too. Protip: do not read what he wrote if you have strong libertarian view.
drcode 12y ago
For someone who's a techno-libertarian, like myself, it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument. The most straightforward response is "It will PROBABLY turn out OK, new jobs will probably show up", but that just isn't a very satisfying retort, even if it's the truth.
- calibraxis 12y ago
  Perhaps you could tell them that the question betrays a deep misconception. We can use computers to decrease and deskill employment. Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. (It's like energy research. Want nukes, or sustainable or clean energy? That's up to society to decide.) Of course, passive people who stick to the status quo means we get bad outcomes.
  - nhaehnle 12y ago
    > Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. Right. However, GP may have alluded to the question of whether such an outcome is compatible with libertarianism. Does that question betray a deep misconception?
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  It's the kind of thing where you have to say "I observe that I am confused" and have to re-examine your premises, your objectives, and the conclusions you derive from them. Maybe being techno-libertarian shouldn't be (a strong) part of your identity because it does not make a very good end in itself.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  Where the "jobs" are going seems like the wrong question to me, honestly. I'm fine with not having a "job" as long as I have access to wealth - jobs are a cost we bear in order o generate wealth. The fact that we no longer have to pay that cost, writ large, seems like a good thing to me, overall. There are of course a lot of questions about how the wealth will be distributed and whether or not we're obsoleting ourselves, but I think I'd rather try to carve out a niche for myself in a world where the problem is that we create more wealth than ever with minimal input from humans than live in a world where human labor is a dire necessity.

Offtopic but is there a way to load these kind of one-off podcasts onto an iPhone?

mrow84 12y ago
You can download the episode, without subscribing, from the EconTalk "page", or whatever it's called, in the iTunes store.
jimmyswimmy 12y ago
Not the answer to your question but I listen to this show from time to time using Antennapod, which is in the fdroid repository for Android phones. Works pretty well. The podcast is listed in one of the guides (gpodder.net) and is a searchable result or you can add the RSS feed directly from the econtalk site.

vacri 12y ago

Unfortunate to discover that this new-to-me paradox isn't a paradox at all. "Some things we know/understand can't be written down [easily], thus we know more than we can explicitly explain". It's not counter-intuitive at all, and doesn't oppose itself in any way.

drcode 12y ago
The paradox is the part where things that are hard to write down (i.e. do laundry, trim your fingernails, make a sandwich) seem extremely easy and seem like the first things machines would have taken over, whereas things that are easy to write down (playing chess, arming nuclear missles, diagnose a tumor) seem very hard but are relatively easy for a computer to do. (And yes, it still doesn't qualify as a paradox, in the mathematical sense.)
- forthefuture 12y ago
  I don't know, the first group of things is wholly physical, and the second group is wholly digital. It's incomparably easier to build things (and rightfully so) that never touch the physical world because you don't have to build any physical hardware manufacturing infrastructure.
bertil 12y ago
As someone who studyied Polyani intensively, I was surprised by that too. Protip: do not read what he wrote if you have strong libertarian view.

drcode 12y ago

For someone who's a techno-libertarian, like myself, it's hard to have a good response to the "computers are taking all our jobs" argument. The most straightforward response is "It will PROBABLY turn out OK, new jobs will probably show up", but that just isn't a very satisfying retort, even if it's the truth.

calibraxis 12y ago
Perhaps you could tell them that the question betrays a deep misconception. We can use computers to decrease and deskill employment. Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. (It's like energy research. Want nukes, or sustainable or clean energy? That's up to society to decide.) Of course, passive people who stick to the status quo means we get bad outcomes.
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  > Or we could have fewer hours at greater pay, with less drudgery for the remaining work. Right. However, GP may have alluded to the question of whether such an outcome is compatible with libertarianism. Does that question betray a deep misconception?
nhaehnle 12y ago
It's the kind of thing where you have to say "I observe that I am confused" and have to re-examine your premises, your objectives, and the conclusions you derive from them. Maybe being techno-libertarian shouldn't be (a strong) part of your identity because it does not make a very good end in itself.
x1798DE 12y ago
Where the "jobs" are going seems like the wrong question to me, honestly. I'm fine with not having a "job" as long as I have access to wealth - jobs are a cost we bear in order o generate wealth. The fact that we no longer have to pay that cost, writ large, seems like a good thing to me, overall. There are of course a lot of questions about how the wealth will be distributed and whether or not we're obsoleting ourselves, but I think I'd rather try to carve out a niche for myself in a world where the problem is that we create more wealth than ever with minimal input from humans than live in a world where human labor is a dire necessity.