Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by lallysingh » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:23 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #74

xtrapolate wrote: post #52

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.

.. because they believe that they'll get more money from the efforts of these people than they cost? If they can sell ads that people wouldn't buy without a person on the other side, they can be worth the cost.

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

#102

Post by lmm » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #95

lmm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unfore…

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

I'm surprised, and I wonder what the age breakdown of those people looks like.

> I'm skeptical of the notion that Roombas took anybody's job

It must have on the margin, surely? I was on the fence about getting a cleaner for a long time; it wouldn't've taken much to push me into not doing so (and many of my friends in similar circumstances, some of whom have Roombas, don't).

> or that I'm about to get a toilet cleaning robot any time soon.

Toilet cleaning will probably be one of the last things to go as the worst-case scenario there is pretty bad, but I read some interesting blog posts a year or two back about a robot that can pick up clothes from the floor and run a laundry cycle (with the help of a QR code sticker on the washer). I don't expect a robot to replace a human cleaner immediately, but I do expect the gradual automation of more and more domestic cleaning tasks, which will push more and more people across the line where it doesn't make sense to hire a human cleaner.

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

#103

Post by zbentley » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

abusoufiyan wrote: post #8

erikrothoff wrote: post #5

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…

>also choosing careers based on what they feel is fun/satisfying for themselves. I don't think this is ever going to change in human society. If a job is fun to a large group of people, then it will pay poorly because many people will want to do it. And poor pay decreases the satisfaction one gets from such a job. The only people who win here are those who find a job fun / satisfying that most other people cannot han…

> There's a reason professions like doctory, investment banking, and consulting pay so much, they involve lots of sacrifice and/or job unhappiness that you have to pay people a lot to get them to commit to the job.

That's partly true, but there are other dynamics at work as well.

Expert sewage/waste management workers get paid a lot less than those trades, though their trade is necessary and involves lots of sacrifice/job unhappiness.

On the other hand, private military contractors and undersea welders make a premium, despite being nominally "service" or less popularly lauded jobs.

There are other factors at work in addition to this.

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

#104

Post by crdoconnor » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #102

crdoconnor wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 unfore…

> It turned out a lot of people actually wanted to talk to a human when spending $1,500 on a holiday. Shocker. I'm surprised, and I wonder what the age breakdown of those people looks like. > I'm skeptical of the notion that Roombas took anybody's job It must have on the margin, surely? I was on the fence about getting a cleaner for a long time; it wouldn't've taken much to push me into not doing so (and many of my f…

>I wonder what the age breakdown

Skewed, but not skewed towards the elderly nearly as much as you clearly think it was.

Not everybody is like us.

>It must have on the margin, surely?

Not necessarily. It might just mean that, on balance, people who were never going to employ a maid in the first place live in slightly less filthy houses.

>Toilet cleaning will probably be one of the last things to go as the worst-case scenario there is pretty bad

I can't actually see any evidence that anybody's even trying. It's not like driverless cars where we're being told every year that they're, like, 5 years away tops. Who is even working on this? As far as I can tell, nobody.

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

#105

Post by canaanical » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

erikrothoff wrote: post #5

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…

While I believe industrialization has certainly improved in the last 50 years, it feels that there has been a trend towards displacement of the vital work/product generation towards under-powered regions of the world. Potentially only very fortunate humans may now pursue careers in a more ethereal environment that is both profitable and emotionally fulfilling.

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

#106

Post by lmm » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #104

lmm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turned out a lot of people actually wanted to talk to a human when spending $1,500 on a holiday. Shocker. I'm surprised, and I wonder what the age breakdown of those people looks like. > I'm skeptical of the notion that Roombas took anybody's job It must have on the margin, surely? I was on the fence about getting a cleaner for a long time; it wouldn't've taken much to push me into not doing so (and many of my f…

>I wonder what the age breakdown Skewed, but not skewed towards the elderly nearly as much as you clearly think it was. Not everybody is like us. >It must have on the margin, surely? Not necessarily. It might just mean that, on balance, people who were never going to employ a maid in the first place live in slightly less filthy houses. >Toilet cleaning will probably be one of the last things to go as the worst-case s…

> Not necessarily. It might just mean that, on balance, people who were never going to employ a maid in the first place live in slightly less filthy houses.

But, like, there's no massive discontinuity in how likely people are to employ a cleaner (is there)? I'd expect that distribution to be a bell curve like anything else, with lots of people on the margin (and I'm pretty sure I was one of them), and the introduction of the Roomba shifts where that line is slightly.

> I can't actually see any evidence that anybody's even trying. It's not like driverless cars where we're being told every year that they're, like, 5 years away tops. Who is even working on this? As far as I can tell, nobody.

I'm not aware of anyone working on toilets, but I think that's the highest hanging fruit. You already mentioned Roombas, and I mentioned LaundryBot or whatever it's called; I'd expect us to progress gradually from there to things like dusting, window cleaning, oven cleaning and toilets in that order or close to it.

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

#107

Post by nwah1 » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

Production just requires land and labor. Capital is output from previous production used as input again, and it is nice to have but not strictly necessary for employment of labor.

Labor can be applied whenever labor has access to land. So the question is why can't people just go to work? Grow their own food to feed themselves, if need be?

The Industrial Revolution put farmers out of work, but not because farming became illegal, and not because they all forgot how to farm. It is simply that farm labor couldn't pay the rent of land anymore.

The mechanisms by which the unimproved value of land rises and falls is the key mechanism that we must understand in order to understand wages and the rate of unemployment. Real wages are not a number. They are the lifestyle you can obtain. They are what is left over after you've paid your taxes and your right to exist in a particular location. (Increasingly, healthcare and education are prerequisites to getting by in the same way.)

Simply giving people money, irrespective of the financing method, as most advocates of the "technological unemployment" thesis argue for, ignores the nature of rent. When there's no rent-free land, rents rise and fall based on the ability to pay. People getting free money have more ability to pay, and landlords will definitely notice.

Thing about land is they aren't making it anymore. Higher demand doesn't just stimulate supply. The supply curve is vertical.

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

#108

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #34

A really surprising thing here is that their analysis is also based on an somewhat unrealistically negative datum. They're using the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate counts people who are happy to not work, which is not a problem - and probably to be expected as the total number of upper and rich class individuals increases over time as a share of society. A much more useful measurem…

It’s really hard to measure underemployment. I mean, I have what most would consider a pretty decent tech job, however many of my peers are Senior Director of this and VP of that, and with my background and experience I know I could be a CTO rather than what I am. Am I underemployed? I feel underemployed, but who’s to say I am or am not?

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

#109

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #71

crc32 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK - would you agree that this presents us with an ethical problem? How about a societal/practical problem? Is an unequal society sustainable? What actions can be taken to mitigate the ethical and practical problems presented by inequality?

> OK - would you agree that this presents us with an ethical problem? My instinct is that inequality is not inherently unethical if it's a fair reflection of people's skills and/or efforts. If people are so poor that their needs are going unmet that's an ethical problem, but those people are not made any worse off by the existence of wealthy people. > How about a societal/practical problem? Is an unequal society sust…

>those people are not made any worse off by the existence of wealthy people. //

How does that work? If there are wealthy people using more than their share of resources and energy, staying wealthy on the back of other's labour (rent-seeking, capitalism), then surely the presence of those wealthy people makes resources/energy more scarce and the need to pay the excess in order to maintain the wealthy means all goods/services/resources are more costly.

If one person owns the farmland and charges rent without giving back value then all the workers must work harder than if the farm is owned cooperatively.

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

#110

Post by zanny » Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 3:38 PM UTC

ghostcluster wrote: post #14

erikrothoff wrote: post #5

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…

Those kinds of jobs are only sustainable when the audience is 100-1000x + the size of the pool of creators. It's not a broad panacea.

Just look at patreon. It is fairly unreasonable to expect even your fans to spend more than $1 a month on you, so if you want a reasonable income (and I'd consider reasonable to be peak happiness if you want success in life) than you want around 100k USD in yearly earnings. Take out the 40% self employment tax, the 3% Patreon takes, and you need roughly 12,000 people giving you a dollar a month to "succeed" in terms of income happiness as a creator on Patreon.

Now, some of your audience are going to be whales that have vastly more money and are willing to treat $100 like $1. But you also have a huge portion of your audience that pays nothing, by nature of the default state of Patreon being a free main product with only supporter bonus content rather than paywalling your main focus (because how are people going to discover your stuff if its paywalled?). I imagine the best conversion ratio is like 20% and that is wildly optimistic. Twitch subscriptions are comparable, where most streamers float around 20% of their average viewership as subscribers.

So you need 60,000 fans, at least, to make happiness income creatively. Now, each fan would probably support more than just one creator per month, and there are additional revenue sources including ads, merch, cons, kickstarters, etc. But no matter how you subdivide this economy the ratio of creators to consumers has to be drastically biased towards consumers over creators.