Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 233 posts

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

#221

Post by crdoconnor »

lmm wrote: post #208
crdoconnor wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we assume people's willingness to hire a cleaner is a function of how dirty their house is (and how could it not be?) Because: a) lots and lots and lots of people clean their own house and maybe they're the ones buying the vast majority of the roombas, not people with maids. b) just because your roomba cleans up your pet hair really well upstairs doesn't necessarily mean you will want your cleaner to stop coming…

> lots and lots and lots of people clean their own house and maybe they're the ones buying the vast majority of the roombas, not people with maids Surely the one substitutes for the other. The thought "I'm spending longer than I want to cleaning, and my house still isn't as clean as I'd like, and I've had more money lately, I can afford to..." could be completed "hire a cleaner" or "buy a roomba". > tolerance for dir…

>Surely the one substitutes for the other.

If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not.

>I'm generally struggling to understand what your model is here. Are you saying people make the decision about whether to hire a cleaner when they're born and then never change it?

No, I'm saying that:

A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have to make. You've just tried to make about four assumptions in order to build your model and they weren't just poor assumptions, they were cringeworthy assumptions.

B) the total number of people who actually own roombas or roomba like devices suggests to me that the effect on cleaner employment is likely, in any case, to be < noise.

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

#222

Post by lmm »

crdoconnor wrote: post #221
lmm wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lots and lots and lots of people clean their own house and maybe they're the ones buying the vast majority of the roombas, not people with maids Surely the one substitutes for the other. The thought "I'm spending longer than I want to cleaning, and my house still isn't as clean as I'd like, and I've had more money lately, I can afford to..." could be completed "hire a cleaner" or "buy a roomba". > tolerance for dir…

>Surely the one substitutes for the other. If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not . >I'm generally struggling to understand what your model is here. Are you saying people make the decision about whether to hire a cleaner when they're born and then never change it? No, I'm saying that: A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have t…

> If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not.

It fulfils some of the same functions, some of what some buyers are buying for. A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin, but McDonalds found that they did substitute for each other in terms of what people bought for breakfast.

> A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have to make. You've just tried to make about four assumptions in order to build your model and they weren't just poor assumptions, they were cringeworthy assumptions.

You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world", to which I can only respond "no" (compare the opening quote on http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/24/probabilities-without-m... ). I think all the assumptions I gave were true and reasonable; if you can actually make a case for why any of them is wrong I will listen, but just dismissing them is not constructive.

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

#223

Post by crdoconnor »

lmm wrote: post #222
crdoconnor wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely the one substitutes for the other. If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not . >I'm generally struggling to understand what your model is here. Are you saying people make the decision about whether to hire a cleaner when they're born and then never change it? No, I'm saying that: A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have t…

> If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not. It fulfils some of the same functions, some of what some buyers are buying for. A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin, but McDonalds found that they did substitute for each other in terms of what people bought for breakfast. > A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have to…

>A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin

I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar.

>You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world"

...and now you're using a cringeworthy straw man.

I'm saying "if you're going to make a claim like "roombas are killing jobs", it probably shouldn't be based on a model that makes 4 really reaching assumptions, each of which are completely unproven and quite likely wrong.

Oh, but the New York Times and a few economists thinks robot kills jobs, so this fits in with everybody's groupthink, so that's ok, right?

>I think all the assumptions I gave were true and reasonable; if you can actually make a case for why any of them is wrong

This is reminding me of the conversation I had with my vicar who asked me to disprove god's existence if I thought I was so smart.

>just dismissing them is not constructive.

I disagree. I think it's very constructive to dismiss unproven assumptions that are probably wrong, but neatly fit into some kind of groupthink. It's how a lot of science is advanced.

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

#224

Post by AlanSE »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #172
AlanSE wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as long as there is freely available land of sufficient quality For any reasonable near-term (centuries scale) prospect, there are no serious space or material constraints to outer space. Quality is a different subject, I want to get into that. > Yet, given the harshness and distances in space, and the fact that land generally obtains value by proximity to other stores of human-produced value Density of development…

It hasn't been done because it's uneconomic with current technology. Space mining is a nice idea with no practical road map. You can't just send tools into space, aim them at the nearest asteroid, and start drilling. You certainly can't expect to start building viable habitats yet. The industrial revolution was incremental. A steam engine wasn't a completely new thing, it was just an improved source of power for exis…

The steam engine was invented to remove water from coal mines, which was extracting coal to be used for heat. It was pretty darned new at that time, because the first versions operated by pulling a vacuum and experiments on strong partial vacuums had only just really begun not more than 100 years before then within English intellectual circles. It took quite some time and monumental efficient improvements after that for people to start employing coal-fired steam engines for tasks other than improving the production of coal itself.

You are exactly right that an entire network has to be solved together to open up space. This was also the case for the early industrial revolution. Because of this catch 22, right now we essentially have "space for space's sake".

That's also why space development will follow the pattern of a tipping point. As the pre-requisites aren't really there, investors don't have a good option to pour money into the venture. Once those building blocks start to get filled out, options open up, investment comes in, the building blocks themselves get cheaper, and things will progress faster than what people have imagined.

Humans have had, in total, a pitifully scant amount of interaction with extraterrestrial resources. Micro-gravity manufacturing isn't a thing yet, and we don't have the practical knowledge of how that will work. But the first step is lowering launch costs...

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

#225

Post by kudokatz »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #28
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…

> Now humans can start focusing on spending their day building things for the entertainment of other humans, and also choosing careers based on what they feel is fun/satisfying for themselves. How long before we get to a situation where this is a realistic proposition for many people? Most people on HN live in a comfortable bubble. The reality right now is that the vast majority of jobs are not creative, fun, or sati…

> How long before we get to a situation where this is a realistic proposition for many people?

the FIRE (Financial Independence / Retire Early) movement is showing how most people can do this in a matter of 20 years instead of 40, with those who are highly-compensated doing it in 5-10 years.

20 years of drudgery is much better than 40-60, so I'd say we're at least making progress. The hard part of realizing that goal is the much more difficult skill than the math: establishing what is "enough" for a good life.

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

#226

Post by lmm »

crdoconnor wrote: post #223
lmm wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not. It fulfils some of the same functions, some of what some buyers are buying for. A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin, but McDonalds found that they did substitute for each other in terms of what people bought for breakfast. > A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have to…

>A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar. >You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world" ...and now you're using a cringeworthy straw man. I'm saying "if you're going to make a claim like "roombas are killing jobs", it probably shouldn't be based on a model…

> I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar.

Exactly - they're superficially very different, but what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners.

> it probably shouldn't be based on a model that makes 4 really reaching assumptions, each of which are completely unproven and quite likely wrong

So put up or shut up: which assumption do you think is wrong, and what do you think the appropriate replacement is?

> This is reminding me of the conversation I had with my vicar who asked me to disprove god's existence if I thought I was so smart.

It's reminding me of the tortoise who denies modus ponens - if you deny the ability to make inferences then where do we even go from there?

> I disagree. I think it's very constructive to dismiss unproven assumptions that are probably wrong, but neatly fit into some kind of groupthink. It's how a lot of science is advanced.

Saying "groupthink" as a meaningless buzzword isn't constructive either. Science advances by questioning assumptions but you have to actually do the work of considering an alternative; science doesn't advance by people introducing a question like "but what if effects didn't follow causes" and then just stopping there.

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

#227

Post by crdoconnor »

lmm wrote: post #226
crdoconnor wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar. >You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world" ...and now you're using a cringeworthy straw man. I'm saying "if you're going to make a claim like "roombas are killing jobs", it probably shouldn't be based on a model…

> I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar. Exactly - they're superficially very different, but what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners. > it probably shouldn't be based on a model that makes 4 really reaching assumptions, each of which are completely unproven and quite likely wrong So put…

>what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners.

Roombas do not deep clean carpets, cannot traverse stairs, can't clean bathrooms at all, are blocked by clothing and other heavy objects, closed doors, etc. and cannot clean anything that is not on a floor.

That is not what I would qualify as "similar to a person".

>So put up or shut up

Why? I am not the one trying to advance an agenda of "roombas are clearly putting maids out of business". I'm the skeptic.

I think it's entirely possible that all of your assumptions are wrong and probable that at least half of them are.

>if you deny the ability to make inferences then where do we even go from there?

I might start with questionnaires asking roomba owners about their cleaner hiring practices in order to confirm or deny one of the key assumptions underpinning your thesis. It'd be a good topic for research, but not one I have seen pursued.

>Saying "groupthink" as a meaningless buzzword

It is not a meaningless buzzword. The idea that robots destroy jobs is commonly accepted because it is popular. I could find 20 or so articles in a couple of minutes advancing the idea, whereas the skeptic's view - that it doesn't, is barely represented in the media.

Most of what appears in the media advancing this agenda is unsourced and the little that is sourced comes from things like that junk study from Ball State U.

I mean, does that not sound like groupthink to you? It does to me.

>Science advances by questioning assumptions but you have to actually do the work of considering an alternative

Well, if you're really interested in proving your point - why not fire off some questionnaires to roomba owners - did they have a cleaner before they bought the roomba? did they fire the cleaner after? did they cut the cleaner's hours? This seems like a more productive line of enquiry - reality is usually more accurate than shit models.

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

#228

Post by upvotinglurker »

jdietrich wrote: post #39
abusoufiyan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The difference I see is that historically automation was used to increase productivity. Is this true? The stocking frame (and the reactionary group of Luddites that it incited) didn't really increase productivity. It just did work humans were doing for less money than a human salary. I guess I also just don't see much difference. All that will happen will be again a shift away from many kinds of jobs (the easily aut…

>Is this true? The stocking frame (and the reactionary group of Luddites that it incited) didn't really increase productivity. It just did work humans were doing for less money than a human salary. Mechanisation of the textile industry led to vast increases in the quantity of production. Prior to the industrial revolution, most peasants would have owned only one set of clothes and replaced them only when they were en…

A 40% increase seems pretty vast to me.

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

#229

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

maxerickson wrote: post #216
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes the work stays the same- people can be repurposed to do something else or fired. Investing heavily in tech is a big risk and is something that slows this kind of unemployment significantly

Sure, it's a cartoon example. But I think the broader point, that businesses can afford to invest quite large amounts to reduce labor costs, is not very controversial.

It's really not a cartoon example. I've seen your point but in reverse: small shops that get big contracts go out and buy $500,000 machines instead of hiring 10 people to do the work.

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

#230

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #55

Warning: the following is conjecture which I have not researched. Because who has the time? My main question while reading this article was why is the author so stuck on "manufacturing" jobs being automated away? He does address this very briefly in section III but I cannot help but feel his foundational research is highly skewed. Sure, robotics are growing in popularity and that technology, specifically, will likely…

Only the larger manufacturers are going to be upgrading plants with multi-million dollar (or very, very recently hundreds of thousands) equipment to replace a few hundred workers each (if that?).

Not really.

Bear in mind that when you're talking machinery costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, you're looking at stuff that farmers are buying these days.

It's not only the big companies that can do this. In an economy where a small house in SF costs $1M, a $1M machine is essentially a mortgage payment that you can depreciate.

Post reply on HN