The problem with this explaination is that it focuses on the technical aspect and not on the economical one : how is the value created shared among the people in the economy?
Technological progress allows concentration of power in the one who holds the capital, as he will be the main one to benefit from a more efficient capital : with the new machine you can make 15 buns whereas you made less with the new one. The employee is not paid more : the capitalist earns the cost saved.
Problem is that the capitalist doesn't spend 100% of his income : he will consume some, invest some and save the rest in unproductive accounts or stocks. He may produce 50% more hot dogs, but the demand will not follow.
Economics theory says that in this case prices may go down, but that would mean a lowering of the capitalist's profits. He may in this case reduce quality in order to lower the prices while preserving his margins.
Hence we see here 3 things : accumation of capital in a few hands, an era of deflation and low yields due to low demand and high monetary stock needed to be invested, and a reduction of quality of the product.
The last one is counter intuitive but may be seen in reality : buildings have reached the point where it's commodity, replaced every 30 years, clothes are worthless and the quality of food has been decreasing for the last 30 years (at least in my country, France).
If we get richer everyday, why can't we make buildings that are aesthical, solid and durable anymore? Why is quality food reserved only for rich people?
Returns to capital in the form of ownership of companies (including eg. the source code to automate labor that's owned by those companies) have been flat. Higher returns on capital have almost entirely been caused by higher housing prices. See eg. Rognlie's paper at http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf.
The non-violent solution is thus a land-value tax. Hopefully forcing most if not all the non-economically active people to move to cheaper COL areas.
That is not to say we should discourage home ownership, but we should discourage multiple home ownership for the purpose of rent extraction. Land is a zero-sum market and landlords who are against development and housing construction are effectively stealing value from those who would use thee homes as a residence.
Does "returns to capital in the form of ownership of companies" mean "returns to capital on stocks and equities"? I'm confused because returns on equities certainly haven't been flat.
> Technological progress allows concentration of power in the one who holds the capital, as he will be the main one to benefit from a more efficient capital
I do not think that is true. The consumers of all goods and services also benefit from technological progress, because they become cheaper, more widely available, higher quality (different ways of saying the same thing).
Technological progress in the last ~200 years has radically improved the lives of everyone, most significantly by freeing them from being subsistence farmers and clothes-makers. Even though most people today do not own a lot of capital, the cost of living well has come down so substantially that even poor people today arguably have much better quality of life than historical kings. For example, the majority of US households below the poverty line own an automobile, have multiple televisions with cable TV, a refrigerator, air conditioning, mobile phones, etc. [1] Despite owning no capital, the life of even those in poverty is astronomically better off than 200 years ago.
Are you familiar with the trope where poor people from the distant past would wear clothes until they literally turned into rags? The reason that happened is because clothing was ridiculously expensive compared to today. There was an article about this on Hacker News about two years ago called "The $3500 Shirt - A History Lesson in Economics" [2]. To summarize, in the pre-industrial age, a single shirt required so much labor that its cost was on the order of $3500 - $4000 in modern dollars. Buying a single piece of clothing could cost you multiple months' wages.
> Back in the pre-industrial days, the making of thread, cloth, and clothing ate up all the time that a woman wasn't spending cooking and cleaning and raising the children. That's why single women were called "spinsters" - spinning thread was their primary job. "I somehow or somewhere got the idea," wrote Lucy Larcom in the 18th century, "when I was a small child, that the chief end of woman was to make clothing for mankind." [2]
NPR also published an article on called "The History Of Light" [3] which traces how much light (like candle light or lamp light) you could buy with a day's worth of labor, at various points in history. In Babylonian times, your day's wages could buy you 10 minutes worth of light. Light was therefore relatively expensive and in-affordable. By the 1990s, a day's wages can buy about 20,000 hours worth of light. Light is so cheap everyone has practically unlimited amounts, which led to substantial changes across modern society.
Technological progress has drastically improved the lives of everyone. It has not made everyone rich, but those in poverty today are phenomenally better off than at any time in the past.
Whether you believe it or not it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is true. We can see this today, and through out history. There is an an accelerating concentration of wealth. Which is caused directly because the return on capital is greater than labor. So yes, while costs of goods has decreased, that doesn't mean that the benefits of technology are distributed evenly, or even fairly. The total cost of goods is irrelevant, if share of wealth has actually decreased, and that the economic ladder has been pulled up.
It contradicts one specific bit in your reasoning, namely the "[modern] clothes are worthless" part.
I think the point that Pyxl101 was getting at is that your assertion that modern clothes are of vastly inferior quality compared to older clothes is maybe not well-founded.
Whether or not that's true, idk. Whether or not it's fair to pick out one specific bit of your reasoning, idk.
If you have sources for any of your claims, then maybe we could continue discussion.
I was referring to fast-fashion brands such as Zara, H&M, etc... On a large scale in the near past, you can see a drop of quality in the clothes sold on the market. You may say that it is a conterpart of lower prices, but even expensive clothes are degrading quality in order to preserve their margins.
Since ever fewer people are able to extract the profits from ever more goods it seems clear that there should be a natural tendency toward wealth accumulation and stratification.
There's a rough transition, but eventually we'll get to the point that everything is so cheap that people will produce it for fun, not profit.
Think of how much free open source labor there is, people working together to produce software on their own free time because they like to do it. I see much of the future economy functioning like this, but it only can when automation reaches a level where people can produce enough having fun.
If everyone can purchase a small factory that lives in a room which can built copies of itself, large portions of the economy disappear which is excellent. It could turn most of the economy into small local barter-economies where people did what they wanted and exchanged the outputs with other specialists in their area. (There have been and still are local economies that still function very much like this at least to a degree)
For it to work you have to remove scarcity which is what automation does. Switching from one to the other will be awkward, but it will work eventually.
This is quite a lot like what Marx thought would happen, he was just wrong in his estimation of how effective 19th century automation was going to be.
"The lack of patentability of software is one reason why the market is so innovative"
uh..? I hate to burst your bubble, but software patents are common. The idea that software (as a representation of math) is not patentable died back in the early 1990s.
It could if the internet ecosystem wasn't dominated by platforms that concentrate exchange and thus the value created. Linux is very innovative but lacks enough users to endanger the mains OSes of the market.
When was the last time you ate a real tomato? Not the one grown on hydroponic farm and full of water, but a real one coming from an old and tasty variety full of flesh?
Big food processing firms have been decreasing the quality of food over the years to keep the price low. No more yoghurt but "milk preparations". No more raw milk cheese costly but tasty. Biscuits are getting smaller. Fruits are tasteless and full of pesticides. Let's not even talk about swine, which almost no one knows the real taste anymore since it is produced in industrial facilities and then chemically processed to give it the "standard" tase and color. All of these were not happening on such a large scale 30 or 40 years ago.
My point is that there are other variables to take into account other than prices. Quality is one. You think you have more, but is it of the same quality as before?
> My point is that there are other variables to take into account other than prices.
You said quality food was reserved only for rich people. People with a median income in western countries can comfortably afford to regularly eat locally grown, ethically-produced, non-intensive farm-shop food if that's what they're into. Bill Gates & Donald Trump aren't eating higher quality food than they are.
It's incredibly trivial to get this kind of quality if you're willing to go out of your way and pay a relatively small premium to get it. Many local markets exist.
Personally, I don't find it to be worth it, I don't notice the "quality" as much as some people seem to and I'm not willing to pay even a small premium for it. You've picked a few particular things, some of which only appeal to a very small niche market - you might argue that people have learned out "quality" in their tastes, but that's an opinion, not a fact.
While that was my reaction, in the interest of quality and depth of conversation it would be good if you expanded on why you disagree here.
I'm not sure what the parent meant by this. Quality what? Lobsters? Fresh fruit and vegetables; nuts, seeds, and whole grains; animal flesh - these are all relatively inexpensive compared to processsed "value added" food products, regardless of where you are in the world.
Grass fed beef is higher quality than corn fed beef, but much more expensive today. Many of the classic high value fish are much harder to get and further as lot of seafood is sold under the wrong name. Even Milk is now much older than it used to be. Granted pre pasteurization Milk was dangerous, but there was a period when people still got fairly fresh pasteurized milk.
> Grass fed beef is higher quality than corn fed beef
So - can I taste the difference? In what way is it "higher quality"? Is it a difference I'm willing to pay for or one that isn't really worth it? I think we've settled with what we have because the quality improvement just isn't that much, if it's noticeable at all.
I've compared many organic and local products side by side with commodity variants and found little to no difference to my tastes, so I have to wonder - is it worth it at all? Certainly not to my cheap palate at least.
Its popular to believe so, since corn is branded as evil these days. But of course corn-fed beef is tender, juicy and flavorful. Grass-fed is tougher, leaner and less flavorful. I know which one I prefer.
Deer meat is lean and considered very tasty by many, but as with any food difference people are going to defend what they are used to. However, nutritionally corn fed beef has a higher fat content and is worse for you.
First I said nutrition, fat is close to empty calories. Protein poisoning / rabit starvation is possible, but for the vast majority of people low fat content is much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning
The issue, of course, is time to prepare food. If you're well-off, you can choose to spend time cooking, or have someone else do it for you sometimes - if you're not, then you might not have time to spend cooking (especially if you have children), and almost definitely won't have the mental or physical energy to prepare three healthy meals a day. Job insecurity is draining and causes low-paid workers to put significantly more effort into their work than they're paid for, and many people across the US (and some other countries, like the UK) suffer from it.
In my country, people watch TV an average of 3 hours every single day. It isn't billionaires doing that. It's people that "don't have time to go to the gym". And while Millennials might laugh at this, they're spending just as much on social media sites, Netflix and YouTube.
This whole "I don't have enough time to not neglect myself" it just excuses all the way down. Everyone can find time to exercise and eat well.
People using "not enough time" as an excuse is just a symptom of low self-esteem and self-neglect, which is the real issue. That's the epidemic, and there's great inequality there, though it isn't tied to socioeconomic status.
Watching TV is a low-effort activity. The vast majority of TV (and Netflix and Youtube) is designed specifically not to take any mental power to watch, and it certainly doesn't take any physical power. (Also, watching TV when you have kids is code for watching your kids.)
I'm glad that you've never been in a position where you were under mental stress.
>I'm glad that you've never been in a position where you were under mental stress.
I have, and distracting myself only made it worse, and made it harder to come up with solutions. Why aren't the people who watch TV meditating instead? Rest isn't why people watch TV.
If the harder you worked, the more entertainment you needed, CEOs would be spending 12 hours a day watching TV.
Again, the root problem isn't socioeconomics. There is an inequality, but it's in mindset. It's inside, not environmental.
It's not necessarily to do with harder working alone - it's the stress from job insecurity. If you're an IT worker and lose your job, you can probably find a new one before your rent/mortgage is up. Worst case, you miss a payment or two or you have to cut down on nights out/coffee/whatever.
If you're working something unskilled or where there's no shortage of workers? And you're living paycheque-to-paycheque in the first place? That's mentally distressing on a long-term scale, on top of requiring more physical work. It's not something that's ever going to get fixed - education is unaffordable even before you realise that your kids are going to starve while you're seeking it.
CEOs do not do physical work most of their workday, by the way, so even if the point was solely about physical exhaustion your point would be moot. They are also broadly not worried about not being able to pay their bills.
Basically - there's an intersection of issues which low-wage workers suffer from. Job insecurity causes many of them. The solution is to ensure that people don't feel like they're going to struggle to keep their living-place and pay their bills when they lose their job.
"...how is the value created shared among the people in the economy? ...Technological progress allows concentration of power in the one who holds the capital..."
Capital as the term is usually used is getting a severe beating right along with labor. Goods used to be much more capital-intensive than they are now. Look at the rotting carcasses of factories in Detroit.
And I am sorry - but you immediately switched from "wealth" to "power" and in a service economy, those are disjoint - perhaps in-opposition - things.
Buildings are built to the aesthetics of rich people - in the "mount the TV over the fireplace" style. There's a critic who tears apart crappy McMansion aesthetics all day long. Things like strip malls are an artifact of incentives in real estate development. And good quality food is plentiful and in cases, quite cheap.
Quality food is cheap? Have you ever lived in a big city?
If you come to Europe, you'll see that building a nice house wasn't reserved to the rich. And anyway, if we believe GDP figures, a rich man 200 years ago had the purchasing power of a middle-class american living in a McMansion.
Capital can depreciate, of course. It did, and wealth went from the rustbelt to the techies and financiers who own the algorithms.
> Capital as the term is usually used is getting a severe beating right along with labor. Goods used to be much more capital-intensive than they are now. Look at the rotting carcasses of factories in Detroit.
What the heck are you talking about? Those factories didn't shutter because you don't need a factory to make cars anymore.
Some parts are good points, but some parts are strawman arguments.
If all jobs require four years of expertise to apply for, every time one job gets mechanized, while employers switch over to automation, the employees made redundant would need to sustain themselves while studying to gain the expertise required for a job in a different field at the same salary.
We do have an increasing number of distinct jobs that each take many years of study.
So far, I have felt confident in my ability to evolve in this job sector because I am good at logic, which most of programming relates to. But if the logic aspect of the job was trivialized to the point that anyone could tell a machine what it must do, I might have to move towards a new field, and learn to solve Schrödinger's equations and be deeply knowledgeable about quantum mechanics to be able to program some future, more complex machine.
And yet even that is easier than having to go from driving trucks to managing logistics.
>If all jobs require four years of expertise to apply for, every time one job gets mechanized, while employers switch over to automation, the employees made redundant would need to sustain themselves while studying to gain the expertise required for a job in a different field at the same salary.
>We do have an increasing number of distinct jobs that each take many years of study.
Can you name say, three or four of these jobs which require four solid years of study to master and have been automated away completely in the last 20 years?
Management of local newspapers.
Management of record stores.
Management of video rental stores.
Certain facets of network administration.
Certain facets of software development.
Preparing legal documents.
Scientific lab work.
Accounting.
Investment brokers.
Tax preparation.
Marketing.
Payroll.
Basically any business app is only worth something because it makes workers more efficient through automation. There are a lot of business apps that 4 year folks use.
Also, you are missing the point when you require "automated away completely." It's not binary. If getting something done used to require 100 people and now it requires 10, multiply that against 20,000 companies and you have a huge hole.
The risk of automation isn't completely removing people, it's requiring less people across many career paths.
The if at the beginning should give away that this isn't hard data from looking at our current reality, and more a thought experiment as we trend into a future run by AI.
Things like accounting though; a friend of mine got his CPA. Basically required to go through two years of college (he had a bachelors already, was more of a top up in relevant areas), then prep for a shit ton of CPA testing, work under some CPAs for at least a year, before getting the cert. And any legit accounting firm here expects that.
That's not a trivial amount of effort.
But now Turbo Tax is walking me through taxes with a few clicks. Not completely AI managed personal finance, but in 10 years?
What does my 32 year old friend do at 42? Become a programmer? How long will that take him with no prior knowledge?
Most of the accountants I know seem to spend a their time managing flows of data, forecasting, interpreting legislation & making judgement calls on tax matters. Things that would require "strong AI" that isn't anywhere to be seen currently.
All the automation appears to have done (when it works, which it often doesn't) is made the job less tedious than it was 10-20 years ago.
I could see demand for accountants dry if up tax legislation suddenly became radically simpler but that doesn't seem likely currently. If anything it's growing more complex.
Those sound like more senior accounting positions, which are least vulnerable to automation.
The problem is at the bottom end of the ladder. As software gets better, the entry-level positions will disappear. There will be no longer be a viable path from fresh CPA graduate to 'making judgement calls on tax matters', and you'll have a bunch of people who paid for a useless degree.
"If all jobs require four years of expertise to apply for, every time one job gets mechanized, while employers switch over to automation, the employees made redundant would need to sustain themselves while studying to gain the expertise required for a job in a different field at the same salary."
That is completely true, but it's also something that applies to every other means of labor automation (going back to the 18th century or earlier), so it's nothing we haven't seen before.
Not really. Up until I think at least the 1970s, on-the-job training and apprenticeships were a lot more common. Both the expectation that employees will already have the required skills and expertise and across-the-board requirements for university qualifications are relatively new changes.
Jobs today don't realistically require 4 years of post high school education, even if employers say they do. They're just using it as a filter. If you can find a way to get workers to send a true signal of qualification without blowing four years of their lives, and can pocket even a sliver of the savings, then you will be very very rich.
He goes on for pages taking down his own straw men without even getting close to the completely artificial "make-work" nature of most of our pre-AI economy.
We spend hundreds of billions above-and-beyond what could be strictly considered defense. To this day, a great deal of our interior is subsidized into farming, even though that level of effort has not been necessary for over 100 years. We are bankrupting ourselves on a health care system that costs almost twice as much as its western european counterpart to produce uniformly inferior outcomes, and contrary to the right-wing propaganda of torts-gone-wild, much of this cost is pure admin/bureaucratic overhead. Don't even get me started on the bureaucracy and make work of our various educational systems! Municipalities across the nation throw millions of dollars, bad after good, without claw-backs, to any pack of two-bit hucksters rolling into town with a promise of jobs.
If you ask me, our present system is already under tremendous stress just trying to find work for people. It doesn't even care that much if it is productive--just keep those peasants busy so they won't get into trouble.
> for AI or productivity growth or increased trade or immigration or graduating students to increase unemployment, instead of resulting in more hot dogs and buns for everyone, you must be doing something terribly wrong that you weren't doing wrong in 1950.
Not necessarily. There's going to eventually come a point where any job that can be performed by a low-skilled worker can be performed by automation.
The example used to combat this notion is that servants used to be more plentiful than they are now, and low-skilled workers would be ripe for these types of careers. Well, what did servants do? The same thing my robot vacuum cleaner and dishwasher and microwave and Amazon Echo do now.
Right. He doesn't seem to address how fully general AI can entirely obviate (at least some class) of human labor. It's true that comparative advantage means you can still profitably produce something when others can do it better. But it doesn't guarantee that the (positive) market price will be enough to pay for the worker's sustenance.
This isn't idle speculation: it's exactly what happened to horses once technology obsoleted them, which caused them to die off except for some very narrow cases (rough terrain) and vanity competitions. I know, "humans aren't horses", but they're identical in terms of "what happens when technology can replace all their economic use cases much more cheaply".
So yes: human workers would be able to sell computation services at the market price of $0.50/PFLOPS-hour ... they just won't be able to feed themselves at that wage. (This basic dynamic is arguably what's happening with disability overclassification.)
With that said, Yudkowsky does make a strong case that AI unemployment is not the problem now and that we aren't in that world yet although IMHO he's bought too uncritically into the mentality of "historically NGDP solved everything, just like inflation always cured unemployment, so NGDP must be a cureall".
"This isn't idle speculation: it's exactly what happened to horses once technology obsoleted them which caused them to die off except for some very narrow cases and vanity competitions."
The article does explicitly address this. Do you think the response is unsatisfying, and if so, could you explain why?
"Q. How about timescales longer than ten years? There was one class of laborers permanently unemployed by the automobile revolution, namely horses. There are a lot fewer horses nowadays because there is literally nothing left for horses to do that machines can't do better; horses' marginal labor productivity dropped below their cost of living. Could that happen to humans too, if AI advanced far enough that it could do all the labor?
A. If we imagine that in future decades machine intelligence is slowly going past the equivalent of IQ 70, 80, 90, eating up more and more jobs along the way... then I defer to Robin Hanson's analysis in Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence, in which, as the abstract says, "Machines complement human labor when [humans] become more productive at the jobs they perform, but machines also substitute for human labor by taking over human jobs. At first, complementary effects dominate, and human wages rise with computer productivity. But eventually substitution can dominate, making wages fall as fast as computer prices now do."
Q. Could we already be in this substitution regime -
A. No, no, a dozen times no, for the dozen reasons already mentioned. That sentence in Hanson's paper has nothing to do with what is going on right now. The future cannot be a cause of the past. (etc.)"
This is the failed assumption of the author; that computers need human intelligence to displace jobs but they don't. They've been displacing jobs since their invention and they're getting better at it every year. They don't need to have an IQ of 70 or even an IQ at all.
They created jobs too, a lot of which people assume are done by robots because they're done in other countries.
Apple may only employ 100,000 people in the US but 1.3 million not-robots work for the company that actually makes those phones.
The argument that it automation is "naturally" creating fewer jobs that it eliminates is refuted simply by looking overseas where all those new jobs actually are.
Or are they just temporary?
Foxconn threatened in 2011 that within three years their 1.2 million strong workforce would be largely replaced by robots:
I don't think the argument is that automation creates no jobs, the argument is that (at least in the current instance of automation) it creates dramatically fewer jobs than it eliminates, and the balance is not being made up for over time or in other industries, resulting in a substantial net decrease in employment or wages.
I'm not even talking about robots; I'm just talking about computers. The majority of people developing software aren't creating new jobs, they're deliberately and explicitly reducing the need for human labor.
"Robin Hanson totally thinks that won't happen because human and computer labor are complementary" is not a sufficient response. It's equally true of human and horse labor. Still had the horse die-off. In fact Hanson isn't even disagreeing -- he says that this complement is temporary and will eventually become displacement instead, just like I was saying.
That agrees with my point that Yudkowsky has made a case for AI not causing unemployment now but still being a future risk, even with the economic analysis holding true.
I am entirely unsatisfied with his address of that problem. Mainly because he doesn't address it. He just kinda hand waves it away. And that's the only interesting thing that there is to address.
We all know that automation is coming, and that it's going to replace a lot of workers. Augmentation is also going to come, and it's going to displace many more workers, by allowing one worker to do the work of three. So what do we do with those that are displaced? So far no one has any kind of answer. Most don't even want to think about it, assuming that things will tie up nicely by themselves like on a sitcom episode.
>The example used to combat this notion is that servants used to be more plentiful than they are now, and low-skilled workers would be ripe for these types of careers. Well, what did servants do? The same thing my robot vacuum cleaner and dishwasher and microwave and Amazon Echo do now.
Where I used to live (Singapore), having a live-in servant was very common. It is hardly a primitive society either - a lot of them are probably getting fancy new Amazon Echos for Christmas.
Those servants, of course, aren't local. The labor pool is drawn from relatively more impoverished countries (usually Philippines). The women would accept very, very low wages and usually deal with a large amount of abuse.
The job wasn't automated away in England in the 19th century (no dishwashers or roombas back then), rather it was industrialization - automation, in fact - which provided better, higher paid opportunities that led to the decline of domestic work.
The key to its decline in 19th century England and the key to its continued existence today is simply about the relative exploitability of the workforce.
> There's going to eventually come a point where any job that can be performed by a low-skilled worker can be performed by automation.
A large proportion of low skilled service jobs in which being people, in the service area is 80% of the job and the actual tasks performed have in many cases have been possible to automate for the past century, if anyone thought it worthwhile. Even fast food chains, which aren't exactly renowned for joyous and welcoming customer service and are renowned for process improvement, still use people to dispense food, a century after the invention of the automat.
> being people, in the service area is 80% of the job
> Even fast food chains
Those are also jobs for which, for many customers, replacing people with automation would provide strictly better service. Ignoring the actual preparation and serving of food for the moment, an automated interface for ordering (as in "push button for what you want, pay, order shows up in the kitchen with a number") would make fewer mistakes, move customers through quicker, and cost less.
That doesn't mean automation could easily replace things that require (for instance) precise physical manipulation; it doesn't seem nearly as likely that automation could go around refilling beverages in a restaurant any time soon, and if it could, it'd cost far more than a human would. But taking orders, sending them to the kitchen, and processing payment? Automation would provide strictly better service there.
McDonalds, KFC etc who invest millions in researching process improvements, beg to differ on the strictly better service.
Part of that is down to the fact the person that takes your order also helps clean when not busy, smiles at your kid, ejects unruly customers and upsells to supersize more persuasively than a flashing red box (which was a large part of my original point)
But part of that is also down to the fact that the average person is really bad at using a human-machine interface (and that ain't gonna be improved in a busy commercial environment by voice-recognition technology any time soon)
I mean, I see a lot more automated kiosks in supermarkets than I used to. Usually I use them in preference to human kiosks. Many other people have precisely the opposite preference, and they have money to spend too. Overall, the kiosks increase the throughput of the store, but that's because there are more of them due to their smaller footprint than the checkout counters they replace. In the hands of the average person trying to use the system they're certainly not more efficient than a competent checkout operative, and require a human for every few machines to deal with their idiosyncrasies and frequent failings, and manage the queue.
And the automats, which are a far better human/machine interface than some talking touch screen connected to the kitchen because you literally see the freshly-made fast food, put money in the slot and open to receive it? They've been around for a century now, long before Ray Kroc and Colonel Sanders got into the industry, and they've repeatedly failed.
McDonalds specifically is starting to replace its cashiers with kiosks, though right now it looks like the former cashiers are switching to bussing tables instead.
> an automated interface for ordering (as in "push button for what you want, pay, order shows up in the kitchen with a number") would make fewer mistakes, move customers through quicker, and cost less.
Having sat behind people trying to figure out how to exit automated parking garages on multiple occasions, I'm not convinced this would move people through any quicker. Also, what happens when the button wears out or malfunctions? Are the line cooks also skilled in IT diagnostics or do you just begin hemorrhaging cash till a tech comes out? I've seen skeleton crews continue to make money even through complete power outages.
>Also, what happens when the button wears out or malfunctions?
You have multiple buttons, and have marginally longer lines until someone can come to fix it. Or if that would cost you too much in sales, you have a regular maintenance schedule that reduces the chance of failure to acceptable levels. (And still involves far less labour than paying for a cashier all day.)
Would? It already does, at least for a few well know fast food chains in my country. Just a couple of days ago I used one of those kiosks for ordering and paying.
Suppose you have two workers - one an average joe and the other who learns faster, works faster, produces better work, takes less vacation, never gets sick, never complains, and is willing to accept less pay. Which would you hire?
The end of jobs (as in Humans Need Not Apply) occurs when the latter employee happens to be a robot.
If the examples in the article aren't convincing, there are plenty of other ones. Eg., construction involves lots of manual labor, and lots of machines that are designed only for human operators. If automation reduces the demand for low-skill labor in other fields, the result should be a construction boom, as that sector reduces costs and snaps up more workers. But that's not what we see. In fact, in many ways it's the opposite - in NYC, subways now cost ~30x as much per track-mile (inflation-adjusted) as in the 1920s.
Unemployment in other sectors "should" result in a subway construction boom/plummeting costs only if low-skill labor were the largest cost component of subway construction in the recent past. Was it? I tried searching for a few minutes on Google Scholar to find the share of subway project costs going to labor but didn't turn up anything; maybe you can find something.
I did find articles that say labor costs have increased over time, but none that were quantitative about it. Without quantification it's not helpful.
Now extend that thinking. What if low-skill labour isn't the largest cost component in anything much worthwhile that we're not already doing? How would that affect the reasoning in this FAQ?
The extra cost of modern construction projects can easily be attributed to the increased compliance costs. Any building work that impacts the flow of traffic now requires full time traffic control (manual); Safety inspectors are now full time; Continuous testing and inspection of building materials and practices requires trained inspectors.
We have vastly reduced the injury and death rates associated with construction at the expense of increased number of people involved in assuring that safety and building practices are complied with.
Edit: Salient point in article from one of the reports
"If labor productivity increases do not translate into wage increases, then the large economic gains brought about by AI could accrue to a select few," the report says. "Instead of broadly shared prosperity for workers and consumers, this might push towards reduced competition and increased wealth inequality."
It's funny that automation is under attack. Any conventional measure says that productivity growth declines and the number of jobs grows.
First, the rise of unemployment is not supported by facts.
The widely cited unemployment rate went down to 4.6%.[1] That's the pre-crisis level of the overheated 2008 economy. This reduction is costly, but manageable.
Jobs disappear, but new ones get created. Nonfarm payrolls (aka "created jobs") are well above zero.[2]
So what's the unemployment the media keep talking about?
The unemployment voter. 4.6% is greater than the winner's margin in any of the recent presidential elections. It's a valuable asset to candidates and, thus, a hot media topic.
The average voter actually gets better thanks to productivity gains, not employment (which we can't reduce below 4% anyway). Productivity accounted for 2 percentage points of per-hour output growth.[3] It still contributes at least 0.5 pp. This decline is the real problem: losing those 2% means being poorer by 21.9% by the end of the decade.
But productivity doesn't vote, so this loss is going to happen.
Unemployment, in the sense of "who is looking for a job but can't find one" is low, but the labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, close to a 30-year low [0][1]. It seems to have bottomed-out in the last couple years and is currently holding steady, but the current level is not encouraging. Note that a low participation rate, as in, "people have just given up looking for a job and resigned themselves to permanent unemployment because there are no economic prospects in their vicinity" does tally quite well with the stories the media keeps talking.
Note also that median wages are not yet climbing after their recession decline, despite the falling unemployment (classically, 5% is about the level at which you expect wages to start rising), suggesting that a lot of the new jobs being created are kind of shitty.
> labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, close to a 30-year low. It seems to have bottomed-out in the last couple years and is currently holding steady
The LFPP is the share over the 16-and-over (with no upper age limit) population that is in working or seeking work. The effect you describe is kind of what you'd expect if a big demographic bulge had been passing into retirement age, and but then largely completed that move.
This is true, but I assume you are referring to the Baby Boomers. That generation wasn't so much a bulge as it was a boom, meaning the boomers also had at least as many children as they were (average 2 kids per couple). When the next generation goes to retirement, it will be just as large.
I guess what I'm saying is if you believe the participation rate will increase because a large group of people are retired and the next generation is smaller, it isn't.
Actually, no, Gen X was a bust compared to the Boomer generation, followed by another boom with the Millennials, which is why there is a transition directly from Boomers to Millennials as the numerically dominant generation. Fertility dropped starting in the late 50s and more sharply after 1964.
Yes, you are correct, even accounting for immigration. GenX is of course larger than the Greatest Generation and the Lost Generation that preceded the boomers. We will get a little labor participation relief, but not much. GenX is still significantly larger than the generations proceeding the boomers.
You have to move to find work now. People aren't willing to move any more - that is a part of their reserve price calculation. I have moved six times since 2003.
"Median wages not climbing" much reflects the abject terror in almost all the economy - except that part of the economy which specializes in giving the appearance of innovation, tech - that one might actually innovate.
Until you've bred, trained and presented the racehorse that will save $x million, only to have people tell you "we don't understand it[1], so we're scuttling it" , it might be harder to see.
[1] "Do you understand Word and Excel macros?"
"Yes, of course."
"This is just like that."
"We still don't understand."
The private sector now is embracing a level of willful, egregious technological ignorance I've not seen in my adult life. The whole culture has been led down the garden path of "web development" and anything that is not that, is suspect.
Remember that unemployment rates are terms of art that mean specific things. The rate you're citing is the U3 rate, which focuses on active job seekers.
What has changed is that other rates, such as U6, have remained higher than typically seen -- the current rate is around 9.6%.
Much larger numbers of people are exiting the labor force altogether. That's a symptom of deeper problems in the economy, and promises to get worse before it gets better. In a worst case scenario, were heading towards a new type of feudalism.
If it is foremost an artifact of population dynamics, then my money is on that. We're aging. 1945 was 71 years ago; the knee of that curve is 3-5 years out.
Jobs disappear, and new ones get created. This is true. However, the new ones are not in the same places as the old ones, they are not the same level of pay, they're not the same level of training, and, most importantly, they're not in the same number as the old ones.
Productivity growth is great, if you're in a position to take advantage of it. If you're unemployed, and are unable to get a new job, all the productivity gains in the world won't help you when you can't make your mortgage.
Okay, so one activity that is undergoing significant automation is flying jetliners. ADS-B is mandated like in a year or two.
This is for safety reasons. That happens to be one case where quality prevents really unfortunate outcomes ( an air crash ) but there's no way to take the side of pilots in this argument.
That is why you automate. You automate to improve repeatability of production. If the humans are breaking things - including themselves or other humans - then it is immoral to oppose it, regardless of how it affects our accounting and economic assumptions.
This also leaves craftspeople to make numismatically interesting objects, which is a Big Thing - look at Etsy.
I like the way it is blurbed in Tyler Cowen's latest book "The Complacent Class":
"The problem, according to legendary blogger, economist and best selling author Tyler Cowen, is that Americans today have broken from this tradition―we’re working harder than ever to avoid change. We're moving residences less, marrying people more like ourselves and choosing our music and our mates based on algorithms that wall us off from anything that might be too new or too different. Match.com matches us in love. Spotify and Pandora match us in music. Facebook matches us to just about everything else."
Of my own family, about 3 out of... 20(?) couples met locally. That was a big source of diversity. Match.com is a big source of indiversity. If you both line up on an ideological scale, live next to people who have that ideology, pretty soon you forget how to think.
Now you have to deal with these people at work.
That's one example from a list of examples. People live in bubbles to the point to where I see people in real anguish over who gets elected.
And WRT marriage- oh hell yes. I have access to a behavioral ecologist, and she can tell you how pernicious all this is. The easy story is haemophilia in the royal lines in European history. This will be hard on our genetic ( and mental ) diversity. She calls it "electing the President based on a multiple-choice test" for one thing.
But it's really more about people living in cognitive bubbles, which makes their thinking hidebound, it makes risks seem larger than they are and it stifles the culture.
Throw in a rising Mandarinism - that which is not required is forbidden, and that which is not forbidden is required - and we'll see.
I think Jevon's Paradox[1] might apply to our relationship with AI. Jevon's Paradox states that the more efficiently a resource is used, the more the demand for it increases.
Thus with AI, the more efficiently human labor is used, the more demand for it increases? Thus one person is able to accomplish far more with the aid of robots, therefore the usefulness of labor increases. The out of work argument only works if there is a fixed amount of production that needs to be done and then there's no more to be done after that. However, if that were the case, then we'd have all we would need and no one would have to work because working more would just produce useless stuff that would not be used.
Jevon's Paradox states that the more efficiently a resource is used, the more the demand for it increases.
Jevon's Paradox is a historically contingent observation that held for a while for some resources and has later been unjustifiably treated as a natural law (on occasion). Just like Moore's Law was a historically contingent observation that held for a while.
There is no guarantee that Jevon's Paradox will remain paradoxical, and indeed I can already find counterexamples: electricity for lighting is used more efficiently in modern LED bulbs than ever before, and the effect is to reduce electricity consumption in facilities that switch to LED lighting. "But more efficient lighting prompts people to use lighting where they wouldn't have before!" True, some of the gains are lost that way, but not to the extent that it actually drives more total electricity demand than prior to LEDs. You need total consumption to increase following efficiency gains to get the "paradoxical" result.
"But lower electricity demand causes prices to fall, which leads to more electricity consumption elsewhere!" Also a plausible objection, but remember that you need a rebound effect strong enough to wipe out the original savings and then some for it to be an example of Jevon's Paradox. And we're not observing that.
Sorry for the terrible web site that doesn't let me post a direct link, but look at electricity consumption per capita for the United States here:
According to that, the most recent year with data (2013) actually saw slightly lower consumption per capita than 1998: 12,988.3 kWh and 13,154.8 kWh respectively. The all time peak was in 2008 at 13,663.4.
Jevon's Paradox is a simplified description of one small range of a dynamic equilibrium. It's a range that tends to appear often in practice, but it's very far from the entire history.
Everything depends on how fast automation will hit people. With time (and not total automation), society can adapt and you'll see Jevon's Paradox. But if it happens too fast, and nothing is done about it, you'll see people starving, and violent reactions, just like in the Industrial Revolution.
If it's accelerating, you can be certain it will become too fast at some point.
And then, you can't just wave the issue of total automation away - at some point we'll have to deal with no jobs being available, at least if we escape having something more pressing at the time.
I think the question of what happens if humans have no jobs left to do is extremely premature. Different stages of AI and automation are being conflated in to the same arguments.
Rather, the issue that needs to be considered right now is what happens, in the US, if there is a big disruption to a large group of jobs which have been fairly stable for decades in a very short period of time? Specifically I am thinking about accounting (imminent), lawyers (already happening), financial advisors (happening), insurance agents (happening), real estate agents (imminent), drivers (coming soon), travel agents (transition complete) and so on.
Society as a whole gains benefits, if not direct access, but perhaps at a cost of removing the socio-economic status of a large group of people. This, of course, has happened many times before.
The greater AI-employment questions should be answered after we are pretty sure humans are even going to survive 5, 10 decades from now.
Humans made it through Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, chattel slavery, WWII and various flu epidemics. I doubt we'll end ourselves in 10 years.
"Removing socio-economic status" SHOULD be a goal, to the extent that that status comes from rents ( which it usually does ) . Status seeking is a huge drain on us, and if production starts to go exponential, then the "economic" part fades in importance.
This article just leans on the same historic analogies that don't hold up to scrutiny. These answers fall way short of the effect of automation and AI will have. You are not replacing the job with another, you are replacing the human brain!
I always refer people to this video to explain what it will be like, and it debases almost all the points made in this FAQ:
All these historical analogies fall flat on their face when it comes to an AI being trained to do your exact job. This is not another case of farmers moving to different higher skilled jobs. We are the employed horses of the 1800s about to be made unemployable by the advent of cars.
"We are the employed horses of the 1800s about to be made unemployable by the advent of cars."
The article explicitly addresses that:
"Q. How about timescales longer than ten years? There was one class of laborers permanently unemployed by the automobile revolution, namely horses. There are a lot fewer horses nowadays because there is literally nothing left for horses to do that machines can't do better; horses' marginal labor productivity dropped below their cost of living. Could that happen to humans too, if AI advanced far enough that it could do all the labor?"
"A. If we imagine that in future decades machine intelligence is slowly going past the equivalent of IQ 70, 80, 90, eating up more and more jobs along the way... then I defer to Robin Hanson's analysis in Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence, in which, as the abstract says, "Machines complement human labor when [humans] become more productive at the jobs they perform, but machines also substitute for human labor by taking over human jobs. At first, complementary effects dominate, and human wages rise with computer productivity. But eventually substitution can dominate, making wages fall as fast as computer prices now do.""
"Q. Could we already be in this substitution regime -"
"A. No, no, a dozen times no, for the dozen reasons already mentioned. That sentence in Hanson's paper has nothing to do with what is going on right now. The future cannot be a cause of the past. Future scenarios, even if they seem to associate the concept of AI with the concept of unemployment, cannot rationally increase the probability that current AI is responsible for current unemployment."
"Q. But AI will inevitably become a problem later?"
"A. Not necessarily. We only get the Hansonian scenario if... (etc, etc.)"
Terrible video. Even the creator admits he was probably wrong with the points that he made. Low quality youtube video that doesn't hold up when you actually look at the points he's making. Humans are not horses.
The entire argument is that "automation didnt get invented recently so how can it be the cause of a recent phenomenon". This seems pretty weak to me. Maybe automation has finally automated all (or enough) of the jobs that any human can be trained to do with minimal education, so there aren't any jobs for a percentage of the population anymore?
Assuming that people who lose their jobs to automation will find new ones requires every person be able to perform some sort of new job. But with automation doing most physical tasks and now some mental ones, is it so crazy to think that the bar of competency required to do anything worth paying for is being raised?
The article addresses that explicitly. Some questions in the "Anti-FAQ" are:
"Maybe we've finally reached the point where there's no work left to be done, or where all the jobs that people can easily be retrained into can be even more easily automated."
"What if what's changed is that we're out of new jobs to create? What if we've already got enough hot dog buns, for every kind of hot dog bun there is in the labor market, and now AI is automating away the last jobs and the last of the demand for labor?"
"How about timescales longer than ten years? There was one class of laborers permanently unemployed by the automobile revolution, namely horses. There are a lot fewer horses nowadays because there is literally nothing left for horses to do that machines can't do better; horses' marginal labor productivity dropped below their cost of living. Could that happen to humans too, if AI advanced far enough that it could do all the labor?"
and then there are responses to each of these.
Do you think the responses are unsatisfying, and if so, could you explain why in some more detail?
"Maybe we've finally reached the point where there's no work left to be done, or where all the jobs that people can easily be retrained into can be even more easily automated."
Is
If the problem is automation, and we didn't experience any sudden leap in automation in 2008, then why can't people get back at least the jobs they used to have...
Seems there is a pretty easy explanation- recessions and growth are a feature of our financial system, the noise of which dominates the underlying trend. So yes, people lost their jobs in the recession, but jobs have been recovered since the recession too- just not as many, which is what you would expect from a gradual trend.
Their responses to the horses question, which I think is a very good question, is merely
No, no, a dozen times no, for the dozen reasons already mentioned. and then no mention of the reasons, for which I certainly don't see a dozen.
I can't read it due to the site apparently being down for me, but - the issue isn't in the creative and skilled job markets, it's with the people who never went to university, wound up working e.g. retail for life, and now have family which is living on the brink of homelessness so they can't retrain without having them looked after.
The individualist viewpoint is to say "they fucked up, so screw them", but this is going to lead to people dipping into even more severe poverty and possibly even dying. I think we as individuals have a duty towards the society we were brought up in, which has helped most of us in at least some degree - so what are we going to do about it?
The responses are pretty unsatisfying; there isn't really any meat there at all. Just a bunch of hand-waving "it can go any way". It also fails to recognize that computers don't need to be powerful human-level AI's to displace workers -- they've been doing that from day 1.
That's a straw man. It's obvious that there are still jobs around - (almost, there's always somebody crazy) nobody is arguing that jobs don't exist anymore.
The real question is if automation is finally faster than what society can adapt to. The article makes no effort to answer this.
This is from 2013 so in terms of recovery years it is a bit dated...
But the first three questions all posit that unemployment was rising, and that reemployment was not occurring which is(and was) belied by this graph -https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Does that one graph really tell the whole story? Things not captured here include:
- underemployment, like law school grads working in book stores because no lawyer needs a clerk now that computers do the research for them.
- contractors vs. part time vs. full time. I've seen it asserted that we've lost a lot of salaried positions in favour of contractor arrangements (gig economy) or shift work.
- people who've transitioned from unemployed to being on long-term Medicaid—I don't believe they count as "unemployed", but various mental illness issues can be caused or made worse by being long-term out of work.
People have too much debt, housing costs are too high, and poorly designed social assistance programs discourages work.
Suppose Bob is unemployed and lives with his parents in the suburbs. Bob collects unemployment, is eligible for several social programs and has a deferral on his student loans.
Bob could get hired at $50,000/year in New York City in a second. But housing within any reasonable distance is $2000/month, taking the job would require Bob to start making $1000/month payments on his student loans and cause him to lose $15,000/year in unemployment and other benefits.
Which means Bob can't take that job. He would need a job that pays more than that, which isn't available. So Bob remains unemployed.
Construct a lot of new housing, replace existing social assistance with a UBI, and introduce moderate inflation to reduce the real value of existing debts and maintain the nominal value of housing while reducing its real cost, and we've solved a big part of it.
Because the debt was induced by harmful interest rate subsidies that bring about a highly undesirable wealth transfer from government (i.e. all taxpayers) to banks, distort markets like housing and education by inflating their prices relative to the rest of the economy (including wages), and cause people to take on excessive debt because people care about monthly payments rather than principal amounts and subsidized interest causes the borrowable principal amount to explode at a given monthly payment, since government-subsidized interest then constitutes a large fraction of the payment and is at no risk of default so lenders are willing to make excessively large loans. See also housing crisis.
Undoing the damage done by those subsidies requires their inverse, which is inflation. It transfers wealth from banks to the government to the benefit of taxpayers, allows the real price of housing and education to fall to where they should be without shocking the market by reducing their nominal prices, and allows people to pay off the unwisely-induced existing debt principal with lower value currency.
> Also, this causes interest rates to go up as lenders will expect another surprise inflation.
And then people won't borrow as much principal in the future, so paying down principal will be easier at prevailing wages, which is the desired result.
You're also assuming lenders have control over that given the way the government creating money affects interest rates. When the government creates money it has the effect of reducing the amount of government debt in circulation (they have money, they don't need to issue bonds), which reduces interest rates on bonds and forces would-be bond purchasers into buying some other debt, which increases competition for lending and reduces interest rates in other lending markets too.
Interest rate subsidies help students and banks. Also, where's the money coming from? From lenders, i.e. people's bank accounts.
> It transfers wealth from banks to the government to the benefit of taxpayers
No, it transfers money from lenders (like you and me who have bank accounts) to borrowers. People own banks and lend money to banks. Banks don't have any magical stash of money. If banks lose wealth, then I lose wealth (my bank account earns less real interest).
> You're also assuming lenders have control over that given the way the government creating money affects interest rates. When the government creates money it has the effect of reducing the amount of government debt in circulation (they have money, they don't need to issue bonds), which reduces interest rates on bonds and forces would-be bond purchasers into buying some other debt, which increases competition for lending and reduces interest rates in other lending markets too.
Yes, the government will loan less, but interest rates will go up (right now they're a low 2-3%) to adjust for the risk of inflation which cancels that affect. Lenders have control over interest rates obviously; only they buy bonds. Infact, if the inflation is a surprise, then lenders will be risk-averse causing drastic increase in interest rates (they'll be thinking "what if the government inflates money even more next time in a surprise?"). Lenders like stability.
Eliezer really needs to learn how to stick to his areas of expertise. When he talks about decision theory or the mathematical formalisms of AI it can be spectacular; when he wades into economics or quantum mechanics it's frequently embarrassing.
As someone who is degree-qualified in the area of economics, I have to say I prefer this facetious and reasonably well-informed takedown of bad pop economics (and his HP fanfic!) to his utterly serious entertainment of ridiculous ideas like Roko's Basilisk in the area of expertise he's dedicating his life to...
(Rothbard's law: people tend to specialize in what they are worst at [also applied to Rothbard])
Eliezer never took Roko's Basilisk seriously; unfortunately, there's a great deal of misinformation about this online. Here's what happened:
"What I considered to be obvious common sense was that you did not spread potential information hazards because it would be a crappy thing to do to someone. The problem wasn't Roko's post itself, about CEV, being correct. That thought never occurred to me for a fraction of a second. The problem was that Roko's post seemed near in idea-space to a large class of potential hazards, all of which, regardless of their plausibility, had the property that they presented no potential benefit to anyone. They were pure infohazards. The only thing they could possibly do was be detrimental to brains that represented them, if one of the possible variants of the idea turned out to be repairable of the obvious objections and defeaters. So I deleted it, because on my worldview there was no reason not to. I did not want LessWrong.com to be a place where people were exposed to potential infohazards because somebody like me thought they were being clever about reasoning that they probably weren't infohazards. On my view, the key fact about Roko's Basilisk wasn't that it was plausible, or implausible, the key fact was just that shoving it in people's faces seemed like a fundamentally crap thing to do because there was no upside.
Again, I deleted that post not because I had decided that this thing probably presented a real hazard, but because I was afraid some unknown variant of it might, and because it seemed to me like the obvious General Procedure For Handling Things That Might Be Infohazards said you shouldn't post them to the Internet. If you look at the original SF story where the term "basilisk" was coined, it's about a mind-erasing image and the.... trolls, I guess, though the story predates modern trolling, who go around spraypainting the Basilisk on walls, using computer guidance so they don't know themselves what the Basilisk looks like, in hopes the Basilisk will erase some innocent mind, for the lulz. These people are the villains of the story. The good guys, of course, try to erase the Basilisk from the walls. Painting Basilisks on walls is a crap thing to do. Since there was no upside to being exposed to Roko's Basilisk, its probability of being true was irrelevant. And Roko himself had thought this was a thing that might actually work. So I yelled at Roko for violating basic sanity about infohazards for stupid reasons, and then deleted the post. He, by his own lights, had violated the obvious code for the ethical handling of infohazards, conditional on such things existing, and I was indignant about this." https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2cm2eg/rokos_ba...
I fail to see the misinformation. If he believes in "infohazards" and takes his "timeless decision theory" seriously, then he took this seriously. In fact he took it seriously enough to delete the thread. Nothing he said contradicts these facts.
I'll say it. The guy is a quack. A quack in the robes mathematics rather than medicine, but a quack all the same. No one in philosophy or in mathematics takes these ideas seriously. He never puts these ideas up to peer review, but rather sticks them on his blog where a bunch of people that think of themselves as "smart" and "deep thinkers" read them and nod in agreement. Yet in the end all of these are very very fringe ideas with no evidence either logically or physically to support them.
In the end, Roko's Basilisk, and these ideas of the some potentially benevolent or malevolent AI that controls the the simulation in which we live are indistinguishable from God and his ideas about them are indistinguishable from the same flawed centuries old Pascal's Wager complete with the exact same logical flaws pointed out centuries ago.
possible benefit to hearing about roko's basilisk:
Consider the following beginner-level logical paradox. There are two statements,
1. Santa Claus exists
2. Both of these sentences are false.
They cannot both be true, since 2 says they are both false. They cannot both be false, or 2 would become true. Therefore exactly one of them must be true, and one false. 2 cannot be true, because it says it is false itself. Therefore 1 must be true, and 2 false. Therefore Santa Claus exists.
If you hear the above, you might say "Well, self-referential binary logical statements are fraught, and easy to abuse for purposes of confusing people, in ways that are not obvious to the neophyte." You are now more resistant to hucksters who might use the above style of logic to convince you of something genuinely harmful.
Likewise, being aware of Roko's basilisk, and dismissing it for good reasons, might increase your "philosophical bullshit self-defense rating", leaving you a stronger person.
"The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive."
I think this ignores the most important question of all: Given the rises in automation, how do we avoid adding up in a Hunger Games-esque future?
And before anyone says UBI: Do you honestly think that Paul Ryan, who is planning on gutting Social Security and Medicare right this second, would go along with that? UBI is going to be off the table for at least 20 years.
> I think this ignores the most important question of all: Given the rises in automation, how do we avoid adding up in a Hunger Games-esque future?
Unconditional Basic Income, or something very similar.
> And before anyone says UBI: Do you honestly think that Paul Ryan, who is planning on gutting Social Security and Medicare right this second, would go along with that?
Probably not. Paul Ryan remaining in a position to exert decisive control over policy and avoiding a dystopian future may well be mutually exclusive options.
> UBI is going to be off the table for at least 20 years.
Congressional and Presidential elections are much more frequent than that and can result in sudden and dramatic reversal of policy direction, especially in the face of widespread economic concerns.
Sufficient economic pain, historically and globally speaking, has also been known to provoke large and fundamental political change outside of normal electoral timelines and succession processes.
>Congressional and Presidential elections are much more frequent than that and can result in sudden and dramatic reversal of policy direction, especially in the face of widespread economic concerns.
The frequency of elections is immaterial in the era of uber-gerrymandering and population migration. Censuses are every 10 years.
Advocates of a UBI sometimes balk at this, saying that it's not universal. I think it boils down to a difference in how you label the income (as a tax credit versus being a separate payment).
It's more than just technology: anxiety went up substantially from a mix of
-social status awareness (Facebook and other social networks allow me to constantly compare myself to others)
-for older white Americans the world seems to be under a liberal assault: gay rights, genderless bathrooms, black lives matter, muslim immigrants, a black president, microaggressions etc. All these changes came in relatively rapid succession and the old guard felt it strongly. I'm a liberal man in NYC but I also feel stressed when talking with people: what if I accidentally say something inappropriate, am considered racist or sexist despite my best intentions, wtf is a microaggression etc. I'm for these changes but I think they came in too fast.
-world news are now delivered as they happen, way more effectively than in the past; it's well-known that reading news causes anxiety
-the US Republicans deliberately misinformed and angered their constituency in their quest to fight Obama. They essentially subverted democracy by blindly resisting the other side and not engaging in any dialogue whatsoever. To justify their position and keep their constituency's support, they had to misinform and anger them.
The world is in a much better spot than ever before, but our awareness to every problem around the globe has also heightened. We are also just developing the right mechanisms to defend from information manipulation - fake news, clickbait and super-biased reporting (on both sides) erode trust - it's hard to know what is true and what not anymore, and some people don't even try, they just react (see pizzagate).
I also disagree with the author - a lot of jobs disappeared and this time they are not coming back in the form of other jobs. Through automation and information technologies one person can do the work many many others used to before. Revenue-per-employee increased dramatically because of this very reason, in all areas from finance to tech and services. Many jobs that were be doable with a high-school degree disappeared and they are not coming back.
To the extent that they are not bubbly[1], trades are still a solid way to make money and don't require classroom training beyond high school. Sure, your knees might be shot when you're... forty, but still...
Although the article has little evidence substantiating it, and many, many argument flaws, I do think its main hypothesis is correct, and the current unemployment is not caused mainly by automation.
If you look at the graphs at [0], productivity is falling, not increasing, as is capital. It looks much more that the world is getting old-fashioned poor than automation pushing people out of work.
The jobs are coming back, sure, but they're all bullsh*t jobs. And more and more we're all at the beck and call of computers. Seriously? Just so we can say we have a job?
There may be new jobs that come around, but new jobs require retraining. And what if we automate those new jobs faster than people can be reasonably expected to retrain for them?
Anecdata: we are a 4 head-count startup. One of our heads is leaving soon. I thought about the impact on operations and realized most of his tasks can be automated and the rest we can absorb without overloading. Automation and AI are surely a main factor in some jobs never coming back. High productivity (also thanks to cheaper/better/faster IT-related services) is also a factor.
space bat real talk. people will only be paid if they can give something valuable in return. if people dont have something valuable to offer or they have something of low value, they will not be hired or they will be hired for very little. so if people cant get jobs or become chronically underemployed the question is 'why dont people have anything valuable to offer?' there are probably many reasons, education, technology substitution for human capital, 'automation' though i dont get accused of being a luddite (which i am not) or sharing their fallacies (which i do not). automation will not take away someones job irreplaceably until that automation is 'strong' enough to do lots of stuff. its getting there and it may be contributing to our problems. but its not a reason to panic, if less people can have jobs thats actually a very good thing, we can spend time on other cool stuff. its a reason to restructure our society a little. things that work often work for a period, very few things/processes continue or work indefinitely in the universe. so we could maybe rethink how our society distributes wealth, ownership, etc. how do we get people in a position to offer something valuable? economists spouting dogma and ignoring real problems is pretty dysfunctional. they teach this sort of junk in schools too. its important to fall back on what we know but its also important to re examine what we think we know. its important to think in simple principles when reexamining. gorund-up. economists/many scientists dont like doing that for more reasons that id like to get into here. it falls to people with common sense frankly, which i find lacking on blogs like this.
Technological progress allows concentration of power in the one who holds the capital, as he will be the main one to benefit from a more efficient capital : with the new machine you can make 15 buns whereas you made less with the new one. The employee is not paid more : the capitalist earns the cost saved.
Problem is that the capitalist doesn't spend 100% of his income : he will consume some, invest some and save the rest in unproductive accounts or stocks. He may produce 50% more hot dogs, but the demand will not follow.
Economics theory says that in this case prices may go down, but that would mean a lowering of the capitalist's profits. He may in this case reduce quality in order to lower the prices while preserving his margins.
Hence we see here 3 things : accumation of capital in a few hands, an era of deflation and low yields due to low demand and high monetary stock needed to be invested, and a reduction of quality of the product.
The last one is counter intuitive but may be seen in reality : buildings have reached the point where it's commodity, replaced every 30 years, clothes are worthless and the quality of food has been decreasing for the last 30 years (at least in my country, France).
If we get richer everyday, why can't we make buildings that are aesthical, solid and durable anymore? Why is quality food reserved only for rich people?