151–160 of 270 posts
Full interview here: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/72140684/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I, too, thought that the job losses were permanent. Until there was an article posted here the other week with quotes in news outlets from several different eras since the industrial revolution claiming the same thing. Plenty of reasonable sounding explanations are offered elsewhere in this thread for why this time is different, but then lots of reasonable sounding explanations were offered in the past. I'd say it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One answer, and I don't know if this is the right answer, is that unlike in previous revolutions, a new class of jobs has not been created to (fully) replace the jobs that are being displaced. In the industrial revolution, farmers could move to the city and get a job in the factory. In the (first) information revolution, factory workers could become telephone operators. But as Tyler Cowen notes in "The Great Stagnati…
It's difficult for me to buy Tyler Cowen's thesis that all of the huge gains in marginal productivity have been tapped. If you're a developer, you tend to see incomprehensible inefficiency everywhere, especially if you consult for larger organizations or work on applications that involve human collaboration. I think a more probable explanation for "The Great Stagflation" is the unprecedented level of market intervent…
And its not just wage that must be considered. There are hidden costs of hiring and possibly having to fire an employee, all of which have gone up in recent decades.
People imagine that employers can be made to do all kinds of costly things without effect on employment. Or take home pay. And in good times, it may seem like there are no such effects.
But its in the bad times that consequences are felt, long after the legislation has been passed. If an employer cannot make money hiring a particular worker at the minimum legal wage, the worker isn't going to be hired (legally, anyway).
This has nothing to do with technology adoption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
TL,DR: the country was bankrupted by the usual zero-sum game of runaway government greed. The common people were tired of being forced to pay for stuff like Versailles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Versailles ) and literally starved of patience.
Nothing like this is even remotely comparable to what's happening today in the US. If anything, we're heading towards feudalism rather than revolution.
"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…
Someone should plot the time series of BLS occupational statistics, with the minimum required education/IQ levels for each job. On the one hand the IQ profile of the US is trending down. On the other hand, anecdotally job growth tends to be focused on those areas requiring high IQ, like programming. Squaring this circle may mean job growth outside the US.
"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?
Probably it is not happening now, but it should happen in a few years. Historically technology has displaced humans, but there has always been something that is cheaper to retrain humans for than it is to build machines for. For one thing you can explain to humans what to do, and they could turn an incredible amount of computing power to figuring out, following, and filling out your instructions. Computers simply hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we've been through this many times before 'past predicts future' is not exactly commensurate with a point of inflection. perhaps a real-life example can help - a medical transcription firm in India hires 25 Indians to transcribe medical records. I then sell the CEO a copy of voice recognition software. He is so happy with the results, he fires 24 and keeps 1 Indian to fix the occasional transcription typos! After o…
Those housewives and Indians will not be out of work for long. They are experiencing frictional unemployment right now; they'll retrain and take on a new role soon enough. You don't see the happy ending yet because this was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We love to trash finance types, but banks facilitate a lot of transactions--including home purchases and capital expenditures. When they hurt…
Plenty of others have predicted the rise of unemployment in proportion to increased automation, and they've been wrong before. Maybe this time they'll be right. I don't know; I'm not economist nor do I possess a crystal ball. What I do know is that this whole situation is terribly discouraging for young people fresh out of school. My partner, for instance, recently graduated with a degree in civil engineering from a…
That sucks. I graduated in 2009 with a degree in Biochemistry, I fought for 7 months to get a job-- and when I did, I was laid off pretty quickly. I wish that I had watched this when I first started job hunting: http://tedxcmu.com/videos/charlie-hoehn I think his plan is good. The job hunt is dumb, demoralizing, and at the end of the day you aren't really making anything. Your partner should learn something! (Maybe l…