Live data from Hacker News

Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

slatestarcodex.com

91–100 of 233 posts

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#91

It feels like we're moving away from jobs that are purely productive, to jobs that are more creative. I don't mean arts etc, but 50 years ago a company like Facebook/Snap/Gaming/Any digital entertainment really, could not exist because people were occupied work that was required for society to function. Now humans can start focusing on spending their day building things for the entertainment of other humans, and also…

There can be a substantial difference between what the company and the employee "do." I walk by a twitter building every day. Probably about 500 people, maybe more. What are they doing in there? They sell ads, manage ad accounts, moderation, data protection audits... stuff that David Graeber wold call BS jobs. Now... I'm not in the same camp as him entirely. I think it's rash to just write off 70% of modern, white co…

> stuff that David Graeber wold call BS jobs. Now... I'm not in the same camp as him entirely. I think it's rash to just write off 70% of modern, white collar work as "paperwork" that could just go away.... but I'm not entirely not in his camp too. (...) I'm not sure creative is the right word, but here's somethign going on. Ever increasing (already majority) sections of the economy are producing very ethereal things, with obscure business models...

What I don't think gets mentioned enough in these discussions is Jevon's Paradox[0], which can be summarised as:

> In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes the Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.

Or more cynically: when increased efficiency creates greater demand than that increase in efficiency. I probably don't need to convince anyone here that this happens in real life all the time - we're all familiar with Wirth's Law[1], right?

So I think the same applies to automation and work. If anyone hasn't seen "Paperwork Explosion" by Jim Henson (you know, the guy who made The Muppets and the original voice of Kermit, and Ernie), this is a really good time to do so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IZw2CoYztk

Look at what IBM promised: freedom from administrative woes! We can go back to do real productive work! Essentially exactly what we're hearing now. Now compare it to what actually happened. At the last two universities I've worked I have seen a lot of “the administration department is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding administration department” in action. At the expense of the quality of education and science, I might add.

Buurtzorg Nederland[2] got a lot of attention in recent years for breaking that trend with its simple approach to letting nurses self-organise as independent, self-managing teams (so what Agile tried to be I suppose, except for nurses). What is often overlooked is that this is basically just going back to the model that the Netherlands had up until the 1980s, but a bit enhanced with modern information/communication technology. Jos de Blok, who founded Buurtzorg, briefly that in this short TED talk[3], but my parents were both general practitioners until they retired a few years ago confirmed that this happened all throughout healthcare.

With programming, we know that complexity is something that must be actively fought or it sneaks in. We even have tons of special descriptions for how that happens: spaghetti code, big ball of mud, etc. So ask yourself: why would it be different in any other human-created system?

For me, this is part of the explanation for all the obscurity we see everywhere (that, and a vested interest of a number of parties in keeping things obfuscated). And my prediction is that the natural tendency of automation is to backfire, unless we actively fight this.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buurtzorg_Nederland

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSoWtXvqsgg

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter was twitter before they had all those people. Sure, but it can't scale without them. How exactly is Twitter supposed to pay the bills? People use this platform because, for the most part, the basic premise is entirely free. How else can they fund the infrastructure/R&D costs?

scaling...it did. That is it had a ton of users using essentially the same product with a much smaller team, at one point. Paying the bills.., IDK. Presumably they've determined that these people are useful in this regard. Otherwise, why have them? But from a first principles reasoning, it seems possible to sell add without thousands of ad sellers.

Selling advertising online could be automated for the most part, unless Twitter really does offer personalised offering to ads buyers—which I'm not sure is the case.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#93

One of the problems is that most jobs (95%) created from 2005 up until now are temporary jobs[1]. That is in itself not necessarily a problem as it could mean that people just become freelancers. But for the US it opens up for two major issues. 1) Freelancers have to pay their healthcare themselves. 2) Most jobs created are forced freelance contracts i.e. even if you work at an accounting company they will try and pu…

I wonder if that creates more volatility in the economy, business is much more likely to reduce or end a freelancers hours than a full time employee in a downturn.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#94
So, one issue I had with this is that a big part of the argument is that "when I see shocks to employment, I don't see shocks to LFPR", but we do definitely see shocks in unemployment rates, and I don't think it's crazy to think that these shocks to employment may transfer to LFPR over long periods of time as different people face different levels of success finding adequate work.

I think the strongest argument we can make is that whatever is going on with LFPR has been going on for 50 years, and it does seem to indicate a more difficult job market where people are finding that the jobs available are not better than the alternative.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#95
post #64

Employment is only a result of an individual wanting someone else to do something for them, because they don't have the time or skill to do it themselves. In exchange for someone doing this thing for them, they compensate them with something of value, normally payment in the form of currency. When you consider employment from this angle, I find it extremely hard to believe that a day will come where the majority of h…

> I find it extremely hard to believe that a day will come where the majority of humans on this planet won't want help from other humans to accomplish their goals as they go about their daily lives. If robots are better at helping people accomplish those goals then why would people ask other humans for help rather than robots? I already choose to book my holidays with machine rather than human assistance, pay for my…

>I already choose to book my holidays with machine rather than human assistance, pay for my groceries via machine rather than human

It's funny you should mention this. My last job was at an OTA (online travel agent). They started out with a website to book holidays and an intent to streamline the crap out of the process catering to individuals like yourself. They hired a skeleton call center staff to deal with unforeseen problems with an intent to rely upon them as little as possible.

Over time they realized that a lot of people were calling up to do bits and pieces of the booking over the phone that they could have done online.

Initially they tried to steer them back to the website but they realized that they were mostly dropping out of the sales funnel.

It turned out a lot of people actually wanted to talk to a human when spending $1,500 on a holiday. Shocker.

So, they changed tack and ramped up call center staffing, advertised a free phone number on the every page and let people essentially decide themselves where in the sales funnel they wanted to talk to a human - the whole way through or, like you, not at all.

This company had a really smart approach in other areas too about when to use automation and when not to.

>For the moment I pay humans to do some things like cleaning

You say that as if there has been a multitude of advances in home cleaning technology since the 1950s. I'm skeptical of the notion that Roombas took anybody's job or that I'm about to get a toilet cleaning robot any time soon.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#96
>"Increasingly, banks recognized the value of tellers enabled by information technology, not primarily as checkout clerks, but as salespersons, forging relationships with customers and introducing them to additional bank services like credit cards, loans, and investment products."

Was this written before the Wells Fargo scandal came to light?

Hard to be optimistic when the "silver lining" is that people who were once employed to do necessary work have since been reassigned to trawl for opportunities to make easy money at the expense of the gullible and vulnerable.

Sadly this appears to be yet another theme in technological advancement--the proliferation of scams. Just look at how much social media advertising comes from multi-level marketing schemes.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both a middle class lifestyle and a modest home are moving targets. People eat out a lot more than in the 70’s, they have larger homes and smaller families, they have safer and more reliable cars, they live longer. As far as being able to live where the jobs are this is a problem caused by NIMBYs. This is not a problem they have in Japan.

The root cause is fewer desirable jobs. Fewer businesses with a larger share of the market, in fewer and fewer places.

Desirable jobs is also a moving target. I’d bet a lot of money that virtually every job is safer than in the 70’s, more are indoors, fewer are outside or demand physical labour. If you mean that the supply of desirable jobs has increased slower than demand, sure, I can buy that.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#99
post #96

>"Increasingly, banks recognized the value of tellers enabled by information technology, not primarily as checkout clerks, but as salespersons, forging relationships with customers and introducing them to additional bank services like credit cards, loans, and investment products." Was this written before the Wells Fargo scandal came to light? Hard to be optimistic when the "silver lining" is that people who were once…

Turn the competition knob to 0, everyone slacks, turn it to 11, everyone cheats. In a slowly evaporating pool of jobs, it will head to 11 very quickly.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we are moving from jobs that are actually productive, to bullshit jobs. Advertising doesn't produce anything useful in itself, it simply shifts and amplifies demand, and yet, Google, Facebook, and a vast slice of the rest of the economy is dedicated to producing ads. Even companies which are nominally dedicated to producing things of importance (eg pharmaceuticals) are mostly focussed on marketing. Then there's t…

This bullshit job argument has never made much sense to me, but I see the argument a lot. If companies care about maximizing productivity and profits, and given America's hyper-competitive economy and super-fickle stock market where the difference between meeting the earnings estimate versus missing it by a penny can make the difference between a stock being up 10% or down 10%, why would a company waste money on jobs…

Adding complexity often makes it harder for others to compete. So companies do that(via regulation, or technology, or contracts, or ad campaigns,etc...). And than complexity breeds complexity.
Post reply on HN