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

Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 140 posts

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#11

Post by jiveturkey »

wrong_variable wrote: post #7
ZhuanXia wrote: post #2

I remember reading Average is Over and A Fairwell to Alms just when I first started working. They convinced me that labour power was going to decline precipitously. I stared saving 60+% of everything I made and putting it into index funds. Anyone making a good salary should attempt the same. Much of white collar work is extremely amenable to automation, much more than even truck driving: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi…

If a large amount of white collar workers are jobless, your SPY calls would also become worthless. It's a good idea to invest in index funds, but investing in index funds expecting a economic apocalypse is not good reasoning.

I'm sure the idea is to convert to cash before the apocalypse actually occurs. Even if one misses it by a little (ie, there is some downturn), the bulk of GP's earnings have gone to savings.

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#12

Post by andrenth »

wavefunction wrote: post #5
crazygringo wrote: post #3

> Q: Several studies show technology will disrupt jobs, but they also argue that almost as many jobs will be created. > A: There’s a mismatch of job displacement and job creation. Job displacement is being driven at the speed of digital technology, which is explosive at this moment. And displacement is the business model for the AI geniuses and all those companies. All of them are hoping to get rich by displacing wor…

It seems like the people studying this stuff disagree with your opinion: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/02/25/automat...

Automation has been in use in the auto industry for decades, and yet it employs much more people than it did before automation was widespread.

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#13

Post by ZhuanXia »

wrong_variable wrote: post #7
ZhuanXia wrote: post #2

I remember reading Average is Over and A Fairwell to Alms just when I first started working. They convinced me that labour power was going to decline precipitously. I stared saving 60+% of everything I made and putting it into index funds. Anyone making a good salary should attempt the same. Much of white collar work is extremely amenable to automation, much more than even truck driving: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi…

If a large amount of white collar workers are jobless, your SPY calls would also become worthless. It's a good idea to invest in index funds, but investing in index funds expecting a economic apocalypse is not good reasoning.

My model is that as median labour power decreases capital and superstars should capture a larger percentage of future productivity increases. And automation should provide huge productivity increases. This seems compatible with index funds being a good bet.

Perhaps I am wrong, but could you provide details as to why?

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#14

Post by deogeo »

andrenth wrote: post #12
wavefunction wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the people studying this stuff disagree with your opinion: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/02/25/automat...

Automation has been in use in the auto industry for decades, and yet it employs much more people than it did before automation was widespread.

What about farming?

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#15

Post by marktangotango »

ZhuanXia wrote: post #13
wrong_variable wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a large amount of white collar workers are jobless, your SPY calls would also become worthless. It's a good idea to invest in index funds, but investing in index funds expecting a economic apocalypse is not good reasoning.

My model is that as median labour power decreases capital and superstars should capture a larger percentage of future productivity increases. And automation should provide huge productivity increases. This seems compatible with index funds being a good bet. Perhaps I am wrong, but could you provide details as to why?

Can you talk about how superstars would capture future productivity increases, in practice?

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#16

Post by GoodJokes »

ZhuanXia wrote: post #2

I remember reading Average is Over and A Fairwell to Alms just when I first started working. They convinced me that labour power was going to decline precipitously. I stared saving 60+% of everything I made and putting it into index funds. Anyone making a good salary should attempt the same. Much of white collar work is extremely amenable to automation, much more than even truck driving: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi…

Ew! Do you only care about wealth. What if you took this oerofrative and tried to increase labor rights. Techies are the least imaginative people I have ever met.

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#18

Post by koolba »

marktangotango wrote: post #15
ZhuanXia wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My model is that as median labour power decreases capital and superstars should capture a larger percentage of future productivity increases. And automation should provide huge productivity increases. This seems compatible with index funds being a good bet. Perhaps I am wrong, but could you provide details as to why?

Can you talk about how superstars would capture future productivity increases, in practice?

It’s no different then the proverbially 10x programmer landing a consulting gig for literally 10x the compensation of a nobody.

Re: Richard Baldwin on the “inhumanely fast” next phase of globalization

#20

Post by [deleted] »

marktangotango wrote: post #15
ZhuanXia wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My model is that as median labour power decreases capital and superstars should capture a larger percentage of future productivity increases. And automation should provide huge productivity increases. This seems compatible with index funds being a good bet. Perhaps I am wrong, but could you provide details as to why?

Can you talk about how superstars would capture future productivity increases, in practice?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN