I'm not worried about AI job loss • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#291

Post by wnc3141 » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:07 AM UTC

RevEng wrote: post #101

I was with the author on everything except one point: increasing automation will not leave us with such abundance that we never have to work again. We have heard that lie for over a century. The stream engine didn't do it, electricity didn't do it, computers didn't do it, the Internet didn't do it, and AI won't either. The truth is that as input costs drop, sales prices drop and demand increases - just like the parad…

This pattern suggests the remaining knowledge work becoming increasingly extracted upon by the owners of ai enabled firms, in similar fashion to sugar plantation workers across the global south. I would think the cost of doing so would be a level of social and civic unrest similar to the colonial revolutions (Bolivar for example) of the 19th century.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#292

Post by nikkwong » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:09 AM UTC

tired-turtle wrote: post #229

Gigachad wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My contingency plan is that if AI leaves me unable to get a job, we are all fucked and society as a whole will have to fix the situation and if it doesn’t, there is nothing I could have done about it anyway.

This is a sensible plan, given your username.

Yeah seriously. Don't people understand the fact that society is not good at mopping up messes like this—there has been a K shaped economy for several decades now and most Americans have something like $400 in their bank accounts. The bottom had already fallen out for them, and help still hasn't arrived. I think it's more likely that what really happens is that white collar workers, especially the ones on the margin, join this pool—and there is a lot of suffering for a long time.

Personally, rather devolving into nihilism, I'd rather try to hedge against suffering that fate. Now is the time to invest and save money. (or yesterday)

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#293

Post by Ensorceled » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:10 AM UTC

jackfranklyn wrote: post #248

[flagged]

I recently did a contract at medium sized business with a large retail and online business that had a CFO and several accountants / bookkeepers. You're describing a situation where that CFO only needs two or three accountants and bookkeepers to run the business and would lay off two or three people.

It IS about headcount in a lot of cases.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#294

Post by Seattle3503 » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:11 AM UTC

small_model wrote: post #225

adriand wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's your contingency plan? Buy a subscription to the revolution? I’ve been working on my contingency plan for a year-and-a-half now. I won’t get into what it is (nothing earth shattering) but if you haven’t been preparing, I think you’re either not paying enough attention or you’re seriously misreading where this is all going.

This ^ been a SWE for 20 years the market is the worst I have seen it, many good devs been looking for 1-2 years and not even getting a response, whereas 3-4 years ago they would have had multiple offers. Im still working but am secure in terms of money so will be ok not working (financially at least). But I expect a tsunami of layoffs this and next year, then you are competing with 1000x other devs and Indians who w…

A lot of non-AI things have happened though.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#295

Post by ares623 » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:13 AM UTC

hirvi74 wrote: post #212

zozbot234 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So AI is going to steamroll all feasible jobs, all at once, with no alternatives developing over time? That's just a fantasy.

It'd probably be cold day in Hell before AI replaces veterinary services, for example. Perhaps for mild conditions, but I cannot imagine an AI robot trying to restrain an animal.

Every job deemed "safe" will be flooded by desparate applicants from unsafe jobs.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#296

Post by Seattle3503 » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

themafia wrote: post #211

rockbruno wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, my personal fear is that the higher-ups will overlook this fact and just assume that AI can do everything because of some cherry-pick simple examples, leading to one of those situations where a bunch of people get fired for no reason and then re-hired again after some time.

As if "higher-ups" is an assigned position. If you fail as a "higher up" you're no longer higher up. Then someone else can take your place. To the extent this does not naturally happen is evidence of petty or major corruptions within the system.

In competitive industries, bad firms will fail. Some industries are not competitive though. I have a friend that went a little crazy working as a PM at a large health insurance firm.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#297

Post by realusername » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

small_model wrote: post #282

realusername wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called an economic crisis, it has nothing to do with AI, my friends also have trouble to find 100% manual jobs which were easily available 2 years ago. Yes I said the word that none of these company want to say in their press conference.

Thats because there are more tech/service workers competing for the manual jobs now.

Tech workers aren't numerous enough to have that effect.

Besides that, why aren't we seeing any metrics change on Github? With a supposedly increase of productivity so large a good chunk of the workforce is fired, we would see it somewhere.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#298

Post by next_xibalba » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:15 AM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #162

zozbot234 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was with the author on everything except one point: increasing automation will not leave us with such abundance that we never have to work again. That's because we prefer improved living standards over less work. If we only had to live by the standards of one century ago or more, we could likely accomplish that by working very little.

What is interesting is the new things are cheap while the old stuff is now expensive. Average house in Australia is $1,000,000 while a TV is $500. The internet, social media, etc are cheap. Having someone repair your shoes is expensive.

Economies of scale were realized in the tv, but not the house. Maybe bc they aren’t realizable in housing, maybe bc regulation, maybe bc of the nimby veto, etc.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#299

Post by ddtaylor » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:20 AM UTC

uxcolumbo wrote: post #133

ddtaylor wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge demand for low-skill labor in other industries. Stuff like plumbing, HVAC, and a ton of other traditionally unsexy jobs that can barely keep enough people in a town to perform these jobs at higher costs than normal.

I wouldn’t call plumbing and other trades low skill.

I agree. I didn't mean to disparage anyone. I have a massive appreciation (and some involvement!) in these trades. The amount of knowledge these guys have about their trade is impressive.

Re: I'm not worried about AI job loss

#300

Post by dullcrisp » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 2:22 AM UTC

xyzzy123 wrote: post #278

jackfranklyn wrote: post #248

[flagged]

I'm not very familiar with the field on a practical basis. What parts of the job require judgement that is resistant to automation? What percentage of customers need that? If the hours an accountant spends on a customer go from 4 per month to 1, do you reckon they can sustainably charge the same?

Why would better efficiency mean they have to charge less?