The dead economy theory • Hacker News Board

Re: The dead economy theory

#151

Post by zzzeek » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

troosevelt wrote: post #112

bayarearefugee wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we can do better than this In theory we can do better than this, in practice we can't. 40% of the people in the US would rather starve to death themselves than live in a world where people they hate for their skin color get anything without toiling for it.

I appreciate that there is a significant chunk of people that are like this, but I think if you really believe the 40% number or anything like it, you're giving yourself a false worldview. The majority of people aren't racist nor do they have a problem with government helping them out. What was happening (are you referencing 2024?) in 2024 and today was a government saying the economy was fine when it is not. When th…

> if you really believe the 40% number or anything like it, you're giving yourself a false worldview.

> The majority of people aren't racist nor do they have a problem with government helping them out.

40% is ....not a majority

the current POTUS has a 37% approval rating and this is considered to be historically low, due to wars, corruption, etc.

but even with all of that corruption and failure, 37% of surveyed adults, *still approve*. This includes his frequent, deeply racist tirades on Twitter. They approve!

Re: The dead economy theory

#152

Post by Root_Denied » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:38 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #140

xg15 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "people need jobs to be happy, so we should design our society such that they need jobs" No, this is not what the article said. It's more "people need jobs to have any kind of leverage in society" which is something different.

I don't think that "people need jobs to have any kind of leverage in society" is actually true, though. Retired people without jobs are (in-)famously known to be politically powerful, both regarding elections and regarding local political questions apart from elections (like city planning commission decisions).

Their leverage is a result of having the time to be involved in politics, which is itself a result of working for decades to build up to the point that they could retire. They're an end result of the system, not an exception to it.

Re: The dead economy theory

#153

Post by asdfman123 » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:38 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #131

spongebobstoes wrote: post #15

this whole blog post is basically "people need jobs to be happy, so we should design our society such that they need jobs" not only is the premise wrong, but forcing people to work is not a good or ethical way to address this problem most people like the social aspect of work, but not being beholden to their boss we can give people meaning, community, culture, growth, without relying on employment and money we can do…

> "people need jobs to be happy, so we should design our society such that they need jobs" No, this is not what the article said. It's more "people need jobs to have any kind of leverage in society" which is something different.

To be fair they argued both. Jobs suck but we need to feel useful to other human beings. Jobs (either paid or volunteer jobs) are the only ways we consistently contribute.

Like maybe instead of making requirements docs you could pivot to counselling at risk youth... but AI is rapidly improving at that, too.

Re: The dead economy theory

#154

Post by nerdsniper » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

ekidd wrote: post #127

alex_young wrote: post #53

Why is this time different? Won't super power AI tools allow companies to do more with the same number of people? Don't you think a smarter way to run a business is to capture more of the market if you have the resources to do so? If company A decides they just want the same slice of the market they have now and can fire half of their employees and pocket $$$, can't company B hire the same workers and compete harder…

> Why is this time different? If it was just programming being automated, then whatever. Lots of professions have been automated and society adapts. The underlying worry here is that current AI provides a partial automation of intelligence. The endgame for the investors and the corporations using AI is complete automation of intelligence (and manual labor, too). They want a $25,000 robot that works around the clock,…

> Strictly speaking, they don't even need us as customers.

I think they'd employ some number of humans for entertainment.

Re: The dead economy theory

#155

Post by dualvariable » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

The first bit is just a restatement of the "paradox of thrift":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

If every business cuts headcount and costs, then you overall get a contraction in the economy and high unemployment and a recession. Everyone's spending is someone else's salary and revenues.

Couldn't get through the rest of it because it was a bunch of overly verbose human-slop writing.

I think the bigger issue right now is also just straightforward economic pressure caused by tariffs and high energy costs and inflation. If the affluent consumer starts to buckle, businesses may get caught in a downsizing spiral where they start posting lower profits, firing actual management, stock prices decline, and the affluent consumer retracts. No AI required to fuel that.

Right now with stocks hitting record highs, the affluent consumer is not changing their behavior at all and just spending even harder, which is keeping profits pumped up, and keeping stocks at record highs. At the margins, though, fewer and fewer people are participating in the economy, which is a trend that is going to be unsustainable.

I think AI is going to be most relevant in the debt collapse that it leaves behind, and in the excuses it gives to shed employees. This economy is going to hit a wall at some point, AI or not.

Re: The dead economy theory

#156

Post by deaton » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #65

spongebobstoes wrote: post #15

this whole blog post is basically "people need jobs to be happy, so we should design our society such that they need jobs" not only is the premise wrong, but forcing people to work is not a good or ethical way to address this problem most people like the social aspect of work, but not being beholden to their boss we can give people meaning, community, culture, growth, without relying on employment and money we can do…

Star Trek isn't real life, when human labor stops being valuable the humans who's labor was previously vital will be at best left to rot in squalor.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The only reason we are worth keeping around is because what we do is necessary to keep the machine running. The idea that the AI singularity would lead to infinite free stuff for everyone is ridiculous.

Re: The dead economy theory

#157

Post by coffeemug » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

ekidd wrote: post #127

alex_young wrote: post #53

Why is this time different? Won't super power AI tools allow companies to do more with the same number of people? Don't you think a smarter way to run a business is to capture more of the market if you have the resources to do so? If company A decides they just want the same slice of the market they have now and can fire half of their employees and pocket $$$, can't company B hire the same workers and compete harder…

> Why is this time different? If it was just programming being automated, then whatever. Lots of professions have been automated and society adapts. The underlying worry here is that current AI provides a partial automation of intelligence. The endgame for the investors and the corporations using AI is complete automation of intelligence (and manual labor, too). They want a $25,000 robot that works around the clock,…

The future you're describing doesn't seem likely to me because in this event the public will force redistribution through political action.

Re: The dead economy theory

#158

Post by danaris » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

nerdsniper wrote: post #154

ekidd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this time different? If it was just programming being automated, then whatever. Lots of professions have been automated and society adapts. The underlying worry here is that current AI provides a partial automation of intelligence. The endgame for the investors and the corporations using AI is complete automation of intelligence (and manual labor, too). They want a $25,000 robot that works around the clock,…

> Strictly speaking, they don't even need us as customers. I think they'd employ some number of humans for entertainment.

At that point, why bother to employ? If we have no recourse, no power to resist them (as must be the case in that scenario), then they might as well just keep us as pets.

Or slaves.

Re: The dead economy theory

#159

Post by D-Machine » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #142

ekidd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this time different? If it was just programming being automated, then whatever. Lots of professions have been automated and society adapts. The underlying worry here is that current AI provides a partial automation of intelligence. The endgame for the investors and the corporations using AI is complete automation of intelligence (and manual labor, too). They want a $25,000 robot that works around the clock,…

> Strictly speaking, they don't even need us as customers. They can just have the robots build them yachts and mansions directly. And act as security guards. That sounds like we'll devolve into wars over resources so houses can build more war-bots and get more resources....

> That sounds like we'll devolve into wars over resources

Two astronauts meme: "Wait, it's all been over resources?" "Always has been"

Re: The dead economy theory

#160

Post by asdff » Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:42 PM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #53

Why is this time different? Won't super power AI tools allow companies to do more with the same number of people? Don't you think a smarter way to run a business is to capture more of the market if you have the resources to do so? If company A decides they just want the same slice of the market they have now and can fire half of their employees and pocket $$$, can't company B hire the same workers and compete harder…

>Don't you think a smarter way to run a business is to capture more of the market if you have the resources to do so?

The market is probably already at the limits of its size in most industries. Great, you can ship app updates faster. Does that get you more customers? Nope. Is there now more money in the pot for everyone who is more productive to also make more money? Hell no. The pie we are competing for is finite.