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

We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

buzzmachine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 270 posts

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#141

Post by dpatru »

The reason why America doesn't have more good jobs is that America is no longer the preferred place to run capital-intensive businesses that can employ large numbers of semi-skilled workers at high wages. For a large part of the 20th century, America was the best place to locate high-tech factories. Cadillacs were built in Detroit. Now Apple iphones are built in Shenzhen.

The Americans that 40 years ago would be engaged in building and running factories employing hundreds and thousands of semi-skilled workers (requiring millions of dollars of capital), are now employing tens of high-skilled workers (requiring thousands of dollars of capital.)

In short, the capital per entrepreneur ratio in America has dropped. As a result, entrepreneurs are employing fewer people.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#142

Post by usaar333 »

ww520 wrote: post #77
ChristianMarks wrote: post #10

The OP's post could use some context. Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage was forged in a world where labor and capital were essentially fixed. England could weave cloth more efficiently than Spain, but Spain could make wine more efficiently than England. Therefore, they would both benefit from trade given that each of these countries had a comparative benefit or efficiency to offer. The assumption under compa…

I am curious. How does Germany do it? It has high labor cost yet it maintains its manufacture leadership and has export surplus. China and Germany become manufacture powerhouses yet have vast difference in labor cost structure.

High value goods mostly, the same thing the US builds. China is a powerhouse of simpler things (though improving); Germany does the complex stuff (automobiles, machine tools, bullet trains, etc.)

On a related note, US is also a manufacturing powerhouse still. Its manufacturing GDP per capita is only about 20% below Germany - and absolutely it is the largest in the world by far (using nominal conversion rates). It though is producing far higher value per employee than Germany, and astronomically higher than China.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#143

Post by stretchwithme »

Technology is essential to economic growth. When you accomplish a task with fewer resources and less labor, you have extra resources.

You can take those extra resources and spend it on something else or lend it to someone else to spend on something else. There is no loss of jobs over all. The jobs have just moved.

This is a process that has been going on forever. And its responsible for the high standard of living enjoyed by industrialized societies.

Its only because of technology and the capital it has created that enable workers to get high wages. If wages didn't rise, workers would have a strong incentive to compete with their employers. They can borrow money and buy the same technology. This is exactly what goes on in Silicon Valley. And everywhere else in the world.

The current dearth of jobs in many fields is the result of the collapse of the housing bubble and government policies that impair recovery, not being able to do more with less.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#144

Post by moe »

achompas wrote: post #101

Don’t fill potholes. That won’t fix the economy. Uh, yes. Yes it will. The workers that fill those potholes will earn wages, which they can then use to pay for goods. By purchasing those goods, they pay other workers' wages, and the virtuous cycle continues. Listen HN, I love your knowledge of technology and entrepreneurship. But the economics posts on here are deplorable. We've seen disruptive technologies many time…

it will not replace jobs that need to happen in person.

I think we'll soon see robots take many of those jobs.

And yes, I'm frequently ridiculed for that opinion. But I really think it will happen during my (late) lifetime.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#145

Post by SoftwareMaven »

CamperBob wrote: post #123
locopati wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution

No, the French Revolution occurred because of active exploitation and abuse of the lower classes. The French people were not sitting around debating whether to spend the evening playing with their PS3s, going out for pizza, or mailing out a few more resumes. They were sitting around starving.

This comment would imply the cause was wealth disparity. What were the rich doing to exploit the poor (other than not giving them money).

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#146

Post by cpeterso »

bfung wrote: post #72
dxbydt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But why now, when it hasn't in the past? One might well ask, why not now ? Given a(t) t, where a(t) = rate of new jobs created per year -b(t) t, where -b(t) = jobs lost due to technology per year Problem is, the function a(t) is stable and predictable over time, because human populations are generally sigmoids ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_growth ) Whereas the function b(t) feeds on itself ( http://en.wiki…

So far in the 20min discussion, I like this answer best as it tries to outline the factors for even a crude estimation. I do have another variable to add that nobody has mentioned. I think the sentiment, not explicitly conveyed in the article, is that "there are less jobs for the number of employable people ". And there lies the rub. Perhaps net total jobs is still on the rise, but the rate of population growth is th…

> Perhaps net total jobs is still on the rise, but the rate of population growth is that much faster than the rate of jobs created.

The rate of population growth is declining, especially in developed nations. The UN estimates that the world population will peak at ~9B in the 2050s and then begin falling. Also, the demographic balance is changing because there will be fewer young people in the job market.

So perhaps the jobs/people ratio will improve, but these same demographic changes (and increasing life expectancy) pose big questions about fewer workers supporting healthcare and government services for more older people.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#147

Post by sabat »

pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

I don't believe that technology has suddenly killed millions of jobs.

No, it's fear. Banks are afraid to lend, and so SMBs can't expand. Corporations, sitting on trillions of dollars, are afraid to hire because they think it's too risky.

Catch-22.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#148

Post by mwsherman »

bfung wrote: post #72
dxbydt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But why now, when it hasn't in the past? One might well ask, why not now ? Given a(t) t, where a(t) = rate of new jobs created per year -b(t) t, where -b(t) = jobs lost due to technology per year Problem is, the function a(t) is stable and predictable over time, because human populations are generally sigmoids ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_growth ) Whereas the function b(t) feeds on itself ( http://en.wiki…

So far in the 20min discussion, I like this answer best as it tries to outline the factors for even a crude estimation. I do have another variable to add that nobody has mentioned. I think the sentiment, not explicitly conveyed in the article, is that "there are less jobs for the number of employable people ". And there lies the rub. Perhaps net total jobs is still on the rise, but the rate of population growth is th…

Well, population growth has also been the case all along (for centuries), so the "why now?" question would be the same. Increased population is also an increase in consumers.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#149

Post by lionhearted »

Eliezer wrote: post #71
pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

PG, what probability would you assign to the propositions "This time things are different" (empirically: the jobs won't come back 5 years from now) vs. "This time things are not different" (empirically: the jobs will come back 5 years from now)? Warning, if your probabilities are extreme enough, someone might want to bet you on it. Presuming things are different, I see five obvious answers to the original question (a…

> PG, what probability would you assign to the propositions "This time things are different" (empirically: the jobs won't come back 5 years from now) vs. "This time things are not different" (empirically: the jobs will come back 5 years from now)? Warning, if your probabilities are extreme enough, someone might want to bet you on it.

What odds would you bet on?

I'll lay you 10:1 that world GDP continues to trend up barring WWIII or other force majeure type event.

Some nations will net lose though. The American currency trades at roughly +25% worldwide due to stability/prestige, and the recent administrations are really doing all they can to undermine both of those. So, American could net lose jobs and net lose GDP (implausible, but possible). But worldwide? Massive increases.

So anyways, what odds on what proposition are you looking for, and what timeline? We're both semi-public figures, I reckon we'd both be good for the money :)

(Rest of the comment is insightful and huge fan of your work, rationality, HPMOR, etc, etc, etc. But I'll lay favorable odds on "this time is not different")

Edit: To clarify, I'm disputing this from the article as I think PG is: "Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." I don't think it is. World GDP continues to massively increase. I also think if America would get out of making financial fuckery the top government and private priority and get back into the entrepreneurship/production/hardwork then the USA will continue to do quite well, too.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#150

Post by twakefield »

Eliezer wrote: post #71
pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

PG, what probability would you assign to the propositions "This time things are different" (empirically: the jobs won't come back 5 years from now) vs. "This time things are not different" (empirically: the jobs will come back 5 years from now)? Warning, if your probabilities are extreme enough, someone might want to bet you on it. Presuming things are different, I see five obvious answers to the original question (a…

Regarding 3), I would guess that re-education always seems more difficult initially and the hurdles are reduced overtime. It must seem have seemed impossible that a farmer would be able to operate a machine in a factory, initially. Also, there are always new people entering the work force that are being educated under the new paradigm.

These days it appears that a lot of effort and innovation is focused on creating services that encourage the 'democratization of software development' which allows traditionally non-technical people to more easily create software and online services. Think Heroku, dotCloud, Twilio, etc. This innovation will continue to lower the barriers of entry into the new economy and allow normals to build.

When you hear people say 'this time it's different' it almost never is.

Post reply on HN