It will just keep bleeding the middle class on and on, till the point where either everyone is rich, homeless or a plumber or other such licensed worker. And then there will be such a glut in the latter (shrinking) market, that everyone in that group also becomes either rich or homeless.
Productivity gains increase the standard of living for everyone. Products and services become cheaper. Leisure time increases. Scarce labor resources can be applied in other areas.
I fail to see the difference between AI-employment-doom and other flavors of Luddism.
It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration. You get richer as you move up in the supply chain, period. Companies vertically integrate to drive costs down in the long run.
As AI gets more prevalent, it'll drive the cost down for the companies supplying these services, so the former employees of said companies will be paid lower, or not at all.
So, tell me, how paying fewer people less money will drive their standard of living upwards? I can understand the leisure time. Because, when you don't have a job, all day is leisure time. But you'll need money for that, so will these companies fund the masses via government to provide Universal Basic Income, so these people can both live a borderline miserable life while funding these companies to suck these people more and more?
It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration
Who cares? A rising tide lifts all boats. The wealthy people I know all have one thing in common: they focused more on their own bank accounts than on other people's.
So, tell me, how paying fewer people less money will drive their standard of living upwards?
Money is how we allocate limited resources. It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both.
> Money is how we allocate limited resources. It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both.
Money is also how we exert power and leverage over others. As inequality increases, it enables the ever wealthier minority to exert power and therefore control over the majority.
> why does the progressive point of view typically argue in favor of giving more power over our lives to the ruling class?
Humans are interesting creatures. Many of them do not have conscience and don't understand the notion of ethics and "not doing of something because it's wrong to begin with". From my experience, esp. the people in US thinks that "if that's not illegal, then I can and will do this", which is wrong in many levels again.
Many European people are similar, but bigger governments and harsher justice system makes them more orderly, and happier in general. Yes, they can't carry guns, but they don't need to begin with. Yes, they can't own Cybertrucks, but they can walk or use an actually working mass transportation system to begin with.
Plus proper governments have checks and balances. A government can't rip people off like corporations for services most of the time. Many of the things Americans are afraid of (social health services for everyone) makes life more just and tolerable for all parts of the population.
Big government is not a bad thing, and uncontrollable government is. We're entering the era of "corporate pleasing uncontrollable governments", and this will be fun in a tragic way.
"Many European people are similar, but bigger governments and harsher justice system makes them more orderly, and happier in general. Yes, they can't carry guns, but they don't need to begin with. Yes, they can't own Cybertrucks, but they can walk or use an actually working mass transportation system to begin with."
This comment is a festival of imprecise stereotypes.
Gun laws vary widely across Europe, as does public safety (both the real thing and perception of; if you avoid extra rapes by women not venturing outside after dark, the city isn't really safe), as does the overall lavel of personal happiness, as does the functionality of public transport systems.
And the quality of public services doesn't really track the size of the government even in Europe that well. Corruption eats a lot of the common pie.
> This comment is a festival of imprecise stereotypes.
I might be overgeneralizing, but I won't accept the "festival of imprecise stereotypes" claim. This is what I got with working with too many people from too many countries in Europe for close to two decades. I travel at least twice a year, and basically live with them for short periods of time. So this is not by reading some questionable social media sites and being an armchair sociologist.
> Gun laws vary widely across Europe...
Yet USA has 3x armed homicide cases in developed world when compared with its closest follower, and USA is the "leader" of the pack. 24 something vs. 8 something.
> as does public safety
Every city has safe and unsafe areas. Even your apartment has unsafe areas.
> as does the overall lavel of personal happiness, as does the functionality of public transport systems.
Of course, but even if DB has a two hour delay because of a hold-up at Swiss border, I can board a Eurostar and casually can see another country for peanuts money. Happiness changes due to plethora of reasons. Like Swedes' daylight duration problems in winter, or economic downturn in elsewhere.
> And the quality of public services doesn't really track the size of the government even in Europe that well. Corruption eats a lot of the common pie.
Sadly corruption in Europe is on the rise when compared to the last decade. I can see that. However, at least many countries have a working social security systems, NHS not being one of them, sadly.
Please what cities? You are just making up rape stats. That’s makes you the bigger idiot here.
Ohh yeah so much corruption I don’t literally enjoy Zagreb more than any US city I have been to and it’s not even special. Because if this is just have the shittiest argument ever there’s my anecdotal rebuttal.
> We're entering the era of "corporate pleasing uncontrollable governments", and this will be fun in a tragic way.
Right, so the answer is not to make that bad government bigger, the answer is to replace it with a good government. Feeding a cancer tumor doesn't make it better.
> Right, so the answer is not to make that bad government bigger, the answer is to replace it with a good government.
Bad government (where by bad I mean serving the interests of the wealthy few over the masses) is bad regardless of it's size.
If you believe in supply-side/trickle-down economics, you might use the opposite definition of "bad", in which case shrinking of government that restrains corporations (protecting the masses) by regulation or paying for seniors not to end up it total destitution (social security /Medicare)
The size of the government is less relevant than what it is doing, and whether you agree with that.
It's not always true that progressives are for more government power. See the death penalty for example. It's pretty much the ultimate power a government could have, and who advocates for it? It's not progressives I believe.
You think the death penalty is an exercise of ultimate power? It’s more an exercise of vengeance.
The ultimate exercise of government power is keeping someone locked in a tiny cell for the rest of their life where their bed is next to their toilet and you make them beg a faceless bureaucracy that has no accountability annually for some form of clemency via parole, all while the world and their family moves on without them.
In a free democracy, I think Progressives see the ruling class as those in a position to influence democratic rule with an outsized influence compared to 1 person, 1 vote. And that are those with money, or with too much centralized media power or popularity.
The employees of the government and those elected are not seen as the ruling class by progressives, but just normal people that have the qualifications and are employed to manage the government on behalf of the people.
It's important therefore that those elected and put in charge of the government are in a position where they don't have the power to benefit themselves or their friends/family, but are in a position where they can wield power to benefit the people who hired them for the job (their constituents), and that if they fail to do so, they can get replaced.
The modern political binary was originally constructed in the ashes of the French Revolution, as the ruling royalty, nobility and aristocracy recoiled in horror at the threat that masses of angry poor people now posed. The left wing thrived on personal liberty, tearing down hierarchies, pursuing "liberty, equality, fraternity". The right wing perceives social hierarchy as a foundational good, sees equality as anarchy and order (and respect for property) as far more important than freedom. For a century they experienced collective flashbacks to French Revolutionaries burning fine art for firewood in an occupied chateau.
Notably, it has not been a straight line of Social Progress,
nor a simple Hegelian dialectic, but a turbulent winding path between different forces of history that have left us with less or more personal liberty in various eras. But... well... you have to be very confused about what they actually believe now or historically to understand progressives or leftists as tyrants who demand hierarchy.
That confusion may come from listening to misinformation from anticommunists, a particular breed of conservative who for the past half century have asserted that ANY attempt to improve government or enhance equality was a Communist plot by people who earnestly wanted Soviet style rule. One of those anticommunists with a business empire, Charles Koch, funded basically all the institutions of the 'libertarian' movement, and later on much of the current GOP's brand of conservatism.
> If that's a problem, why does the progressive point of view typically argue in favor of giving more power over our lives to the ruling class?
You've literally reversed the meaning of the term "progressive" by replacing it with the meaning of the term "oligarchic".
Progressives argue for less invasion by government in our personal lives, and less unequal distribution of wealth and power. They are specifically opposed to power being delivered to a ruling class.
> The problem isn't the money. The problem is the power
These are nearly inseparable in current (and frankly most past) societies. Pretending that they are not is a way of avoiding practical solutions to the problem of the distribution of power.
Progressive is more precise than that. There are specific policies you can examine from the Progressive Era.
Ultimately it was the 'oligarchs' who argued in favor of the progressive agenda. Wall Street created the 3rd central bank, the US Federal Reserve. The AMA closed all of the mutual aid societies and their hospitals. Railroad barons lobbied for subsidies and price controls to eliminate their competitors. Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany, "The world must be made safe for democracy"
Of course no would be authoritarian claims more power without claiming that they are doing it for the greater good or to attack the rich classes. The Progressive Era was smorgasbord of special interest handouts and grants to cartels. All of this was lobbied for by oligarchs.
Yeah, that commenter wildly misunderstands what "progressive" means. Like full on got the definition of the word backwards.
Is this common? People think "progressive" means "complete government control"?
Progressives support regulations to prevent both public and private entities from becoming too powerful. It's not like they want to give the government authoritarian control lol.
I guess it depends on what you're defining as "the ruling class", because I believe most progressives would define it as "the wealthy" and would certainly not be in favor of that. Look at the AOC/Pelosi rift, for instance.
In free democracies, politicians are elected representatives, not rulers. They are accountable to voters through regular elections. Power is distributed across multiple branches/institutions. Citizens have protected rights and freedoms. Politicians can be voted out or recalled. Laws apply equally to politicians and citizens.
In practice, there's always a slippery slope, can wealthy people integrate themselves in that power structure, lobbying, media control, strength of checks and balances, level of corruption/transparency, etc. But when that slips, we stop calling it a free democracy, and it becomes an oligarchy, or a plutocracy, or an illiberal democracy.
Politicians do come in different flavours. There are some elected officials with good intentions. See again the AOC/Pelosi rift.
The more we regulate to get money out of politics, the more good people will have a shot at being elected.
These are all common progressive values. No true progressive supports wealthy unethical politicians gaining more power. Anyone telling you so is not speaking in good faith, or they are misinformed.
Why would "resources" become less limited or necessary just because there's some AGI controlled by a few people? You're assuming a lot here.
Separately, is it "rising tide lifts all boats" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that drives the common person's progress? You seem confused which metaphor to apply while handwaving the discussion away.
Why would "resources" become less limited or necessary just because there's some AGI controlled by a few people? You're assuming a lot here.
The Luddites asked a similar question. The ultimate answer is that it doesn't matter that much who controls the means of production, as long as we have access to its fruits.
As long as manual labor is in the loop, the limits to productivity are fixed. Machines scale, humans don't. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a cotton gin or a warehouse full of GPUs.
Separately, is it "rising tide lifts all boats" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that drives the common person's progress? You seem confused which metaphor to apply while handwaving the discussion away.
I haven't invoked the "bootstrap" cliché here, have I? Just the boat thing. They make very different points.
Anyway, never mind the bootstraps: where'd you get the boots? Is there a shortage of boots?
There once was a shortage of boots, it's safe to say, but automation fixed that. Humans didn't, and couldn't, but machines did. Or more properly, humans building and using machines did.
> The ultimate answer is that it doesn't matter that much who controls the means of production, as long as we have access to its fruits.
That mattered a lot in communist places, we saw it fail. Same thing with most authoritarian regime today, it's a crap shoot. You simply can't entrust a small group with full control on the means of production and expect them to make it efficient, cheap, innovative, sustainable and affordable.
Apparently people who are not wealthy enough to buy a boat and afraid of drowning care about this a lot. Also, for whom the tide rises? Not for the data workers which label data for these systems for peanuts, or people who lose jobs because they can be replaced with AI, or Amazon drivers which are auto-fired by their in-car HAL9000 units which label behavior the way they see fit.
> The wealthy people I know all have one thing in common: they focused more on their own bank accounts than on other people's.
So, the amount of money they have is much more important than everything else. That's greed, not wealth, but OK. I'm not feeling like dying on the hill of greedy people today.
> Money is how we allocate limited resources.
...and the wealthy people (you or I or others know) are accumulating amounts of it which they can't make good use of personally, I will argue.
> It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both.
How will we make resources less limited? Recycling? Reducing population? Creating out of thin air?
Or, how will they become less necessary? Did we invent materials which are more durable and cheaper to produce, and do we start to sell it to people for less? I don't think so.
See, this is not a developing country problem. It's a developed country problem. Stellantis is selling inferior products for more money, while reducing workforce , closing factories, replacing metal parts with plastics, and CEO is taking $40MM as a bonus [0], and now he's apparently resigned after all that shenanigans.
So, no. Nobody is making things cheaper for people. Everybody is after the money to rise their own tides.
So, you're delusional. Nobody is thinking about your bank account that's true. This is why resources won't be less limited or less necessary. Because all the surplus is accumulating at people who are focused on their own bank accounts more than anything else.
How will we make resources less limited? Recycling? Reducing population? Creating out of thin air?
We've already done it, as evidenced by the fact that you had the time and tools to write that screed. Your parents probably didn't, and your grandparents certainly didn't.
No, it doesn't prove anything. To be brutally honest, I have just eaten a meal, and have 30 minutes of relax time. Then I'll close this 10 year old laptop and continue what I need to do.
No, my parents had that. Instead, they were chatting on the phone. My grandparents already had that too. They just chatted at the hall in front of the house with their neighbors.
We don't have time. We are just deluding ourselves. While our lives are technologically better, and we live longer, our lives are not objectively healthier and happier.
Heck, my colleagues join teleconferences from home with their kid's voice at the background and drying clothes visible, only hidden by the Gaussian blur or fake background provided by the software.
How they have more time to do more things? They still work 8 hours a day, doing the occasional overtime.
Things have changed and evolved, but evolution and change doesn't always bring progress. We have progressed in other areas, but justice, life conditions and wealth are not in this list. I certainly can't buy a house just because I want one like my grandparents did, for example.
Just to clarify: the Luddites were being automated out of a job.
From what I understand of history, while industrial revolutions have generally increased living standards and employment in the long term, they have also caused massive unemployment/starvation in the short term. In the case of textile, I seem to recall that it took ~40 years for employment to return to its previous level.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm far from certain that I can survive 40 years without a job.
In addition, although the Luddite uprisings were themselves crushed, the political elite were not blind to the circumstances that led to them, and did eventually bring in the legislation that introduced modern workers rights, legalized unions and sowed the seeds of the modern secular welfare state in Britain. That is a pattern that appears throughout history and especially in Britain, where the government cannot be seen to yield to violent protest but quietly does so anyway.
And among the few who found a job back, most of the time it was some coal mining job, to feed the machines who replaced them...
Maybe the future of (some of) nowadays' office workers is to feed (train) the models replacing them?
I cannot find a place industrial revolutions caused massive starvation. Care to provide one?
The other things you state are not even close.
First, lowered employment for X years does not imply one cannot get a job in X years - that's simply fear mongering. Unemployment over that period seems to have fluctuated very little, and massive external economic issues were causes (wars with Napoleon, the US, changing international fortunes), not Luddites.
Next, there was inflation and unemployment during the TWO years surrounding the Luddites, in 1810-1812 (starting right before the Luddite movement) due to wars with Napoleon and the US [1]. Somehow attributing this to tech increases or Luddites is numerology of the worst sort.
If you look at academic literature about the economy of the era, such as [2] (read on scihub if you must), you'll find there was incredible population growth, and that wages grew even faster. While many academics at the at the time thought all this automation would displace workers, those academics were forced to admit they were wrong. There's plenty of literature on this. Simply dig through Google scholar.
As to starvation in this case, I can find no "massive starvation". [3] forExample points out that "Among the industrial and mining families, around 18 per cent of writers recollected having experienced hunger. In the agricultural families this figure was more than twice as large — 42 per cent".
So yes there was hunger, as there always had been, but it quickly reduced due to the industrial revolution and benefited those working in industry more quickly than those not in industry.
My bad for "massive starvation", that's clearly a mistake, I meant to write something along the lines of "massive unemployment – and sometimes starvation". Sadly, too late to amend.
Now, I'll admit that I don't have my statistics at hand. I quoted them from memory from, if I recall correctly, _Good Economics for Hard Times_. I'm nearly certain about the ~40 years, but it's entirely possible that I confused several parts of the industrial revolution. I'll double-check when I have an opportunity.
Leisure time hasn’t increased in the last 100 years except for the lower income class which doesn’t have steady employment. But yes, I see your point that the homeless person who might have had a home if he had a (now automated) factory job should surely feel good about having a phone that only the ultra rich had 40 years ago.
> As you noted though, a home would probably be a preferable alternative.
The problem is that the preferable option (housing) won't happen because unlike a smartphone, it requires that land be effectively distributed more broadly (through building housing) in areas where people desire to live. Look at the uproar by the VC guys in Menlo Park when the government tried to pursue greater housing density in their wealthy hamlet.
It also requires infrastructure investment which, while it has returns for society at large, doesn't have good returns for investors. Only government makes those kinds of investments.
Better to build a wall around the desirable places, hire a few poorer-than-you folks as security guards, and give the other people outside your wall ... cheap smartphones to sate themselves.
I think the backlash to this post can summarized as such:
Perhaps there is a theory in which productivity gains increase the standard of living for everyone, however that is not the lived reality for most people of the working classes.
If productivity gains are indeed increasing the standards of living to everyone, it certainly does not increase evenly, and the standard of living increases for the working poor are at best marginal, while the standard of living increases for the already richest of the rich are astronomical.
Has it really? I’ve seen a lot of people claiming this since Hans Rosling’s famous TED talks, but I’ve never actually seen any data that backs this up. Particularly since Hans Rosling’s talk was 15 years ago, but the number always remains “past 30 years”.
Off course any graph can choose to show which ever stat is convenient for the message, that doesn’t necessarily reflect the lived reality of the individual members of the global poor. And as I recall it most standard of living improvements for the global poor came in the decades after decolonization in the 1960s-1990s where infrastructure was being built that actually served people’s need as opposed for resource extraction in the decades past. If Hans Rosling said in 2007 that the standard of living has improved tremendously in the past 30 years, he would be correct, but not for the reason you gave.
The story of decolonization was that the correct infrastructure, such as hospitals, water lines, sewage, garbage disposal plants, roads, harbors, airports, schools, etc. that improved the standard of living not productivity gains. And case in point, the colonial period saw a tremendous growth in productivity in the colonies. But the standard of living in the colonies quite often saw the opposite. That is because the infrastructure only served to extract resources and exploitation of the colonized.
> Productivity gains increase the standard of living for everyone
This just isn’t true, necessarily.
Productivity has gone up in the US since the 80s, but wages have not. Costs have, though.
What increases standards of living for everyone is social programs like public health and education. Affordable housing and adult-education and job hunting programs.
Not the rate at which money is gathered by corporations.
Utter nonsense. Productivity gains of the last 40 years have been captured by shareholders and top elites. Working class wages have been flat all of that time despite that gain.
In 2012, Musk was worth $2 billion. He’s now worth 223 times that yet the minimum wage has barely budged in the last 12 years as productivity rises.
>>Productivity gains increase the standard of living for everyone.
>Productivity gains of the last 40 years have been captured by shareholders and top elites. Working class wages have been flat...
Wages do not determine the standard of living. The products and services purchased with wages determine the standard of living. "Top elites" in 1984 could already afford cellular phones, such as the Motorola DynaTAC:
>A full charge took roughly 10 hours, and it offered 30 minutes of talk time. It also offered an LED display for dialing or recall of one of 30 phone numbers. It was priced at US$3,995 in 1984, its commercial release year, equivalent to $11,716 in 2023.
What a patently absurd POV! A phone doesn’t compensate for the inability to solve for basic needs - housing, healthy food, healthcare. Or being unable to invest in skill development for themselves or their offspring, save for retirement.
It is also highly likely that the cost of that phone was externalized onto a worker in a poorer country that doesn’t even have basic necessity like a running water, 24 hour electricity, food security, etc.
Most of it is made in China, China isn't that poor any more it is like Mexico so people have running water and food security and way more than that as well.
Wealth has bled from landlords to warlords and now bleeding to techlords.
Warlords are still rich, but both money and war is flowing towards tech. You can get a piece from that pie if you're doing questionable things (adtech, targeting, data collection, brokering, etc.), but if you're a run of the mill, normal person, your circumstances are getting harder and harder, because you're slowly squeezed out of the system like a toothpaste.
> you're slowly squeezed out of the system like a toothpaste.
AI could theoretically solve production but not consumption. If AI blows away every comparative advantage that normal humans have then consumption will collapse and there won’t be any rich humans.
