Live data from Hacker News

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

qz.com

21–30 of 140 posts

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

#21

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.

Car sales in total have increased though. Due to the population of the world and adoption of automobiles in the rest of the world as well.

I don't find any compelling arguments to disprove what a lot of seeming educated and intelligent researchers and social critics are saying regarding the coming disruption of the labor market.

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

#22

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.

That's simply not true, and impressively so. Despite the growth of car sales worldwide it takes far fewer employees to run a car factory than it did in say the fifties or sixties - probably 90% fewer. I find it just about impossible to believe there's been over a ten fold increase in number of plants to compensate for each factory's reduction of staff.

UK's Ford Dagenham - mainly an engine plant - once used to employ 40 or 50,000 people in the fifties. Now it employs about 2,000, yet produces more engines. The same picture will be repeated for all of their sites.

Cowley where the new BMW Mini is produced now employs about 3,500, it employed around 25,000 when it was one of two plants producing the original Mini in the sixties and seventies. The current car sells more per year.

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

#24
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…

Most of the entry level white collar jobs that can be automated have been.

Those that remain would require some major and I mean order of magnitudes improvements in AI.

Can you give me some examples of white collar jobs that you think can be automated?

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

#25
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…

Saving and investing are good in general. Having a fuckyou fund helps your career as well. You can take on more risk and be more assertive at job.

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

#26

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.

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.

You’re assuming cash will hold value after a so-called economy apocalypse?

If the economic credibility of the nation goes, so too does the value of its cash currency.

What’s a “more white collar workers than jobs” economy look like?

Personally, I’m leaning into useful life skills, like growing food, reconnecting to hunting, low level electronics, rebuilding my car, and home myself with my money now.

I’d rather have deep experience in head and hands than a wheelbarrow full of dolla dolla bills y’all with the buying power of East German currency.

Not that I have any way to be sure the implosion is coming any time in my remaining years. But still, if we’re talking about how to prepare for such a thing, let’s get real: investments in today’s ephemeral value stores are the worst idea for securing yourself against economic collapse

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

#27
post #4

> 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…

Okay... so now also include in your statement the quality of those new jobs. Not how many electronic gadgets people can buy compared to 50 years ago, but how stressed they are and how they fit into greater society. Also include how useful many jobs feel to those working in them - reference to "Dilbert jobs" (or Wally jobs, if you like and how common the feeling seems to be that ones job is useless (I myself certainly…

Contrary to intuition, the average number of hours people work has completely plummeted as well. It's down more than 250 hours a year since the 1950s. [1] At a 40 hour work week that means we now take a bit more than an extra 1.5 months off per year, compared to then. And on topics on forums such as these when you get into physical jobs such as, e.g. plumbers, people bemoan the physical exertion of these jobs and claim the workers are destroying their bodies. OK. Now let's go back to those 'less stressful times.' In the fifties you were looking 7 injuries per 100 workers, and a nation wide average of around 15,000 on-the-job deaths a year. [2] The total workforce back then was only about 62 million. That's 1 in every ~4,100 workers being killed on the job per year. Part of the reason for the rise of occupational safety rules is that so many people were dying on the job that it was hurting the economy!

And this is without even getting into the political differences of the times. In the 1950s people were still just getting over a world war that killed 3% of the entire world's population (imagine 231 million people dying today, to give that seemingly small number the scale it deserves) and brought entire cities to rubble. And this against an extremely capable enemy with genocidal aims, who nearly won. And without missing a beat we then entered into the cold war where everybody woke up realizing that there was a very real chance that their life could end on this day due to imminent nuclear war. Not some abstract 'doomsday clock' nonsense, but literally both sides actively positioning and aiming their nukes at one another ready to go off at a moment's notice - something that genuinely nearly happened multiple times, children practicing drills against nuclear disaster, and regular families building nuclear survival bunkers.

Today we live in a bit of a paradox. Relative to most any time in the past, we live better than ever. Yet people are less satisfied than ever. And I think there's a simple reason. Imagine Star Trek. What would really happen if we had e.g. holodecks? You can do anything, anybody, become anything, anybody, etc. And you would never need, or want, for anything. You would have no conflict, no animosity, and no hope for change since you already have everything. Want to know what the Great Filter of the Fermi Paradox is? Comfort. This would destroy absolutely all meaning in life for most people. People need to want. It provides a clean explanation to so many things. This issue we're discussing, upper class young adults on twitter tirelessly spending their days trying to find things to be offended about - or failing that taking offense on behalf of people they know nothing about, billionaires who continue to work 12 hour days to expand their wealth to no real point, and so on.

[1] - https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=AVHWPEUSA065NRUG

[2] - https://www.ehstoday.com/safety/management/good_times_toll

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

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re assuming cash will hold value after a so-called economy apocalypse? If the economic credibility of the nation goes, so too does the value of its cash currency. What’s a “more white collar workers than jobs” economy look like? Personally, I’m leaning into useful life skills, like growing food, reconnecting to hunting, low level electronics, rebuilding my car, and home myself with my money now. I’d rather have d…

Depends what you are preparing for. If you think automation is going to happen but that capitalism will survive, then index funds seems line a good idea. If you think capitalism will be supplanted, it depends on what you think will replace it. If we're looking at a Mad Max style dystopia, then sure, it won't help to have lots of shares. But presumably you'd see signs of that before we get there and be able to start converting your money into harder currency.

If we're looking at a benign-ish revolution with redistribution it won't matter much.

Personally I think the most realistic medium term risk scenario to protect against is that capitalism will hang in there, but that jobs become more scarce. An outright economic collapse or major social upheaval is likely to take more time. If you start seeing job scarcity hitting, then sure, start converting some of those index funds just in case things accelerate in the wrong direction.

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

#29

> 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…

> There's zero evidence that "creating jobs is slower."

Opportunity for innovation in the market is far less than opportunity for innovation (ie automation) in business processes.

Given a hypothetical business equilibrium (business growth has stabilized or slowed to a small linear function) I have 2 employees. 1 employee writes a program to automate the other employee's job. Now I have 1 employees.

In order for me to have another employee, I have to have a new product and/or process or a whole new business.

I have personally automated people out of a job. Like, they got fired and never replaced. Maybe 5 in my career.

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

#30
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…

Most of the entry level white collar jobs that can be automated have been. Those that remain would require some major and I mean order of magnitudes improvements in AI. Can you give me some examples of white collar jobs that you think can be automated?

I worked at a large tech company that had an enormous finance department. They did everything in Excel. Our job was to automate their work. The tools we built were routinely more accurate and faster than the finance people were.

When our work was less accurate, it was because the input was bad. The input came from the finance team. The only reason they didn't disappear entirely was because they'd convinced management that there were things that the software couldn't do that only humans could futz with. The one or two percentage points their adjustments improved their results by were easily outpaced by the overall improved accuracy of the machines.

Post reply on HN