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

91–100 of 140 posts

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

#91

Post by thrwayxyz »

crazygringo wrote: post #33
jessriedel wrote: post #17

Given that the global poor gaining jobs are statistically much worse off than those losing them, I'd say it's inhumanely slow...

That's just factually untrue. First-world workers aren't losing jobs in aggregate at all. They're not statistically worse off at all. (Unfortunately median income hasn't been improving , but it certainly hasn't been getting meaningfully worse .) While the global poor are experiencing massive benefits lifting them out of poverty. I fail to see what is inhumane here.

[flagged]

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

#92

Post by JoeAltmaier »

thrwayxyz wrote: post #90

The people most worried about AI are the ones not working on it. We don't know how to initialise a simple feed forward neural network yet let alone train it efficiently. It will be centuries before the theory catches up with the proctice. Until then we might as well be monks cross pollinating plants worried about genetic modification.

Likely gross pessimism. We went from clockwork to million-transitor computers in the last 100 years (most of that in the last 25). How long before we hit a billion? A trillion? How long before we hit on the same trick nature blindly hit upon, to initialize her neural networks?

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

#93

Post by roca »

My problem with this take is that people --- including me! --- have been predicting this for decades because the logic just seems so clear, yet unemployment is still low and long-term real wages have not declined, in fact around the world and in most wealth bands they have risen dramatically.

I don't think there's some benevolent cosmic law that ensures job creation will always match job destruction, so I can't assume these dire predictions will never come true. But after so many years crying wolf it's hard to take them seriously until macroeconomic indicators show they're happening.

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

#94

Post by golemiprague »

orpep90nxkfo wrote: post #26
jiveturkey wrote: post #11

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…

I invest in guns so I can come and take the food from people like you, maybe also enslave you so you can keep doing all those useful things.

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

#95

Post by Ericson2314 »

It's looking more like work is becoming pointless but society still makes us do it. I would hope UBI speeds up automation.

In particular AI sucks, but virtually integrated expert systems don't. Too bad they have a hard time emerging under capitalism. Because your supply chain is always insanely stupid mega rent seekers.

Maybe some aquiponics megaco-op can ensure its automation engineers don't starve, which will be to socialism what the loom was to industrial capitalism. Get on it Mondragon.

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

#96

Post by reallydude »

crazygringo wrote: post #31
reallydude wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Job creation doesn't require that much innovation in the market. It just requires demand . People want better coffee and pastries, suddenly there are hundreds of thousands of jobs for baristas, bakers and managers. People grow older and need care, suddenly the number of employees in home care expands drastically. And so on. Maybe for you to need another employee you need a new product/process/business... but most bus…

The demand is the equilibrium I mentioned. Businesses have largely grown to meet demand, or they would be bigger in a small timeframe.

> Maybe for you to need another employee you need a new product/process/business..

The "I" in the example, was for simplicity, try not to take it too far. The candy vendor family at the fair goes to lots of fairgrounds. They are living on the demand that exists, or he would have more employees than his family. The idea that there is some phantom demand, not being met, is at odds with reality of existing businesses as they exist (if there was more demand, there would be growth). New markets necessarily come at the expense of old markets, by-in-large because the disposable income available does not serve new demand, but is the lever that allows for it. Unless adjusted wages spike, the measurable loss of jobs will outpace the growth in every timescaled window where the related events occur.

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

#97

Post by ilaksh »

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…

True but hasn't it always been a pretty obvious goal to accumulate capital?

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

#98

Post by dang »

thrwayxyz wrote: post #91
crazygringo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just factually untrue. First-world workers aren't losing jobs in aggregate at all. They're not statistically worse off at all. (Unfortunately median income hasn't been improving , but it certainly hasn't been getting meaningfully worse .) While the global poor are experiencing massive benefits lifting them out of poverty. I fail to see what is inhumane here.

[flagged]

Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines so we don't have to ban you again?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#99

Post by phkahler »

crazygringo wrote: post #67
phkahler wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automation eliminates jobs. Period. There is a need for people to build and maintain the automation systems, but those jobs typically pay more. Whomever is paying the higher value person would not be doing so if it wasn't a net savings, so we can rightly conclude that it takes fewer people overall even if the pay were the same. But it's not, so even fewer jobs. You may say that the automation frees up people to do ot…

So by your logic, 99% of existing jobs are inferior to being a farmer? Obviously not. You're completely ignoring that entirely new job categories are being created every year, and that the attractiveness of a job depends on many things which can constantly change, including salary, working conditions, geography, hours, etc.

Farming used to be common and a reasonable way to make a living. It has been devalued by automation. Sure, I'd rather build machines than do labor intensive farm work year around. But again, it takes fewer people to automate and grow food than to do it the old way. Jobs were lost. If there were not latent demand for other jobs, automation would have ruined everything 100 years ago.

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

#100

Post by thrwayxyz »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #92
thrwayxyz wrote: post #90

The people most worried about AI are the ones not working on it. We don't know how to initialise a simple feed forward neural network yet let alone train it efficiently. It will be centuries before the theory catches up with the proctice. Until then we might as well be monks cross pollinating plants worried about genetic modification.

Likely gross pessimism. We went from clockwork to million-transitor computers in the last 100 years (most of that in the last 25). How long before we hit a billion? A trillion? How long before we hit on the same trick nature blindly hit upon, to initialize her neural networks?

It doesn't matter how deep a hole you did. You won't strike oil if you're digging at the wrong place.
Post reply on HN