If turning things over to AI seems risky to you, do not doubt that our capitalists will roll the dice and try it if they think it will profit them. Damn the torpedoes!
It’s obvious that AI will probably affect professions previously thought to be safe. On the other hand, to the extent that It improves productivity, the impacts will be similar over a long period of time.
What worries me the most is that AI is said to yield “surprising” results by scientists who one would think should know. But they don’t know. There are researchers studying how a man made science actually produces the results. Now if that isn’t freaky nothing is.
“I’m sorry Dave but I can’t do that” HAL 9000 in 2001 A space odyssey.
John Citoyen: This article is itself well-thought, but I think the comments enhance the contents and to some extent CORRECT misimpressions left by the article.
So, I think YOUR and Mayda's remarks should be read and weighed considerable together with the "Unraveling Economics" theory to balance each other out.
"There are researchers studying how a man-made science actually produces the results. Now if that isn't freaky nothing is."
VERY GOOD, INSIGHTFUL COMMENT.
Moreover, Mayda, below, says, "The reason for the loss of jobs due to the rise of neo-liberal policies after the Reagan Administration. It was not due to automation."
I definitely agree.
It is not coincidental that the movement against workers grew so strong that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was emboldened by a score of years of anti-union to embark on an aggressive, nasty campaign against due process, wages and benefits by his anti-union agenda.
So, while there is considerable merit and reason in this quite well-written article by "Unraveling Economics," YOUR comments, as Citizen -- Citoyen -- and Mayda's observations add a much better picture.
Thank you. I respect Maya’s comment as well. Part of the reason that neoliberal policy had that impact was cheap off shore labor and the automation such as with Japan’s auto industry where robots were put to work.
I’ve come to understand that China’s dominance comes from both labor force and the ability to deliver engineering resources quickly and efficiently with unmatched scale.
It appears that competition with AI will turn on the availability and integrity of source training data…it will be both protected, stolen and corrupted as a countermeasure. Since China is pushing into bioscience, they will value US training data both for diagnosis and drug development.
This comment itself adds more value and creates a larger picture.
I think the post we are responding to could be a leading section in a book chapter, followed by your and Mayda's comments and your expansion on these to complete the picture.
"Unraveling Economics" makes good points, but the economics is so complex, and, frankly, the politico-economic power structures self-serving the elites and crushing the middle-class and poor are so complex, that a complete picture requires a long, data-driven chapter, if not a whole, mathematically complex book on the macroeconomics of world labor.
In your passage "automation is reported to have played a role in eliminating up to 70% of American middle-class jobs lost since 1980.", you are repeating a narrative from the World Economic Forum that seeks to obfuscate the reason for the loss of jobs due to the rise of neo-liberal policies after the Regan Administration. It was not due to automation, it was due to trade deals and policy changes that lifted regulations on corporations moving their production overseas to countries with lax environmental and few labor protections. Most goods were still made by people, but in other places for much less pay.
Nice piece. These are tough questions. It appears to me that, at the very least, we can address automation by ending taxation on labor.
Removing income and payroll tax, for instance, would stretch incomes further and ease the disincentive for hiring. This is one of the measures that I suggest in an upcoming essay at Risk & Progress, but I admit, that it is not a complete solution by any means.
Clearly any kind of machinery is installed only if it is profitable to the entrepreneur. If all do so, it is not at all clear that aggregate profits will rise. Also at play is how the post-mancinery income is used?
Now it is totally possible that the final result is lower wages for a big segment. And If that should happen a larger EITC would be called for
If turning things over to AI seems risky to you, do not doubt that our capitalists will roll the dice and try it if they think it will profit them. Damn the torpedoes!
It’s obvious that AI will probably affect professions previously thought to be safe. On the other hand, to the extent that It improves productivity, the impacts will be similar over a long period of time.
What worries me the most is that AI is said to yield “surprising” results by scientists who one would think should know. But they don’t know. There are researchers studying how a man made science actually produces the results. Now if that isn’t freaky nothing is.
“I’m sorry Dave but I can’t do that” HAL 9000 in 2001 A space odyssey.
John Citoyen: This article is itself well-thought, but I think the comments enhance the contents and to some extent CORRECT misimpressions left by the article.
So, I think YOUR and Mayda's remarks should be read and weighed considerable together with the "Unraveling Economics" theory to balance each other out.
"There are researchers studying how a man-made science actually produces the results. Now if that isn't freaky nothing is."
VERY GOOD, INSIGHTFUL COMMENT.
Moreover, Mayda, below, says, "The reason for the loss of jobs due to the rise of neo-liberal policies after the Reagan Administration. It was not due to automation."
I definitely agree.
It is not coincidental that the movement against workers grew so strong that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was emboldened by a score of years of anti-union to embark on an aggressive, nasty campaign against due process, wages and benefits by his anti-union agenda.
So, while there is considerable merit and reason in this quite well-written article by "Unraveling Economics," YOUR comments, as Citizen -- Citoyen -- and Mayda's observations add a much better picture.
Thank you. I respect Maya’s comment as well. Part of the reason that neoliberal policy had that impact was cheap off shore labor and the automation such as with Japan’s auto industry where robots were put to work.
I’ve come to understand that China’s dominance comes from both labor force and the ability to deliver engineering resources quickly and efficiently with unmatched scale.
It appears that competition with AI will turn on the availability and integrity of source training data…it will be both protected, stolen and corrupted as a countermeasure. Since China is pushing into bioscience, they will value US training data both for diagnosis and drug development.
John Citoyen: You and I both see that.
This comment itself adds more value and creates a larger picture.
I think the post we are responding to could be a leading section in a book chapter, followed by your and Mayda's comments and your expansion on these to complete the picture.
"Unraveling Economics" makes good points, but the economics is so complex, and, frankly, the politico-economic power structures self-serving the elites and crushing the middle-class and poor are so complex, that a complete picture requires a long, data-driven chapter, if not a whole, mathematically complex book on the macroeconomics of world labor.
In your passage "automation is reported to have played a role in eliminating up to 70% of American middle-class jobs lost since 1980.", you are repeating a narrative from the World Economic Forum that seeks to obfuscate the reason for the loss of jobs due to the rise of neo-liberal policies after the Regan Administration. It was not due to automation, it was due to trade deals and policy changes that lifted regulations on corporations moving their production overseas to countries with lax environmental and few labor protections. Most goods were still made by people, but in other places for much less pay.
Overall, a thought provoking piece. Thanks.
Nice piece. These are tough questions. It appears to me that, at the very least, we can address automation by ending taxation on labor.
Removing income and payroll tax, for instance, would stretch incomes further and ease the disincentive for hiring. This is one of the measures that I suggest in an upcoming essay at Risk & Progress, but I admit, that it is not a complete solution by any means.
Clearly any kind of machinery is installed only if it is profitable to the entrepreneur. If all do so, it is not at all clear that aggregate profits will rise. Also at play is how the post-mancinery income is used?
Now it is totally possible that the final result is lower wages for a big segment. And If that should happen a larger EITC would be called for