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

The dead economy theory

owenmcgrann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: The dead economy theory

#21

Post by bwanab »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #9
treis wrote: post #4

This isn't how the economy works at all. We're not all unemployed because farms mechanized. We're not all unemployed because factories automated. We won't all be unemployed if AI takes over white collar work.

Farms mechanized but we luckily had other jobs on hand to sponge that up. What used to be a farmhand is now a gas station worker selling zyn to a wallmart worker who sells food to the gas station worker. However, AI is coming for them too. This time it really is different. The whole business pitch is the elimination of any safe harbor. All human labor to be automated. Why have 8 billion humans in that environment? Sc…

In my now long lifetime, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "This time it really is different" for it to turn out that it really wasn't all that different. Maybe this time it is, but I'd put my bet on isn't.

Re: The dead economy theory

#22

Post by sottol »

Miner49er wrote: post #3

> Turn three: the company that fired its workers to save money discovers that its customers were, in aggregate, other companies’ workers. Revenue growth stalls. The AI subscription that was supposed to be an investment in efficiency turns out to be a contribution to the destruction of its own market. For some companies yeah, but this is why companies are switching to consumption based pricing - so they can charge AI.…

But these AIs need energy and GPUs data-centers ... who pays for those? I could imagine a circular mini-economy between a few companies making the bare essentials to keep AI running and not catering to 99.9% of the population because they don't have the funds to buy anything those companies could produce so they don't.

In that scenario AI and robots produce everything, the owners of those AI companies can trade their AI's output with other AI/robot companies, robot and chip manufacturers and commodity owners? So 10000 people world-wide are fine, everyone else is not?

Re: The dead economy theory

#23

Post by esafak »

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…

> we can give people meaning, community, culture, growth, without relying on employment and money

What's your proposal if not traditional work? The realistic outcome I see is shifting labor to unautomatable sectors like hospitality. That will keep people employed, but unhappy as they increasingly find themselves unable to find jobs they enjoy, or at comparable levels of income.

edit: I realize many people are unhappy with their jobs now, but by dint of labor, they can improve their lot. I am lamenting the closing of this window.

Re: The dead economy theory

#24

Post by harimau777 »

treis wrote: post #4

This isn't how the economy works at all. We're not all unemployed because farms mechanized. We're not all unemployed because factories automated. We won't all be unemployed if AI takes over white collar work.

Historically that's not accurate. Automation eventually resulted in more jobs, but for the people actually living through the automation it was VERY bad.

Re: The dead economy theory

#25

Post by Miner49er »

ismaelyws wrote: post #18
Miner49er wrote: post #3

> Turn three: the company that fired its workers to save money discovers that its customers were, in aggregate, other companies’ workers. Revenue growth stalls. The AI subscription that was supposed to be an investment in efficiency turns out to be a contribution to the destruction of its own market. For some companies yeah, but this is why companies are switching to consumption based pricing - so they can charge AI.…

Yep, if AI gutters the middleclass and small budinesses who you gonna sell to?

Well that part of the economy and anything that caters to it might just die.

The whole economy would be whatever AI/robots need: compute, energy, raw materials, software, data, etc.

Re: The dead economy theory

#27

Post by hexator »

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…

> not only is the premise wrong

The blog post offers several studies as evidence, where's yours?

Re: The dead economy theory

#28

Post by roxolotl »

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…

So there’s one reference to happy, investor happiness. There’s 4 to meaning though.

I don’t disagree with you but you’re also missing the scarier point that economic collapse will come before the meaning even is missed.

This article ideally should have been two. One about how a consumer economy without consumers cannot be an economy. Another about what comes next.

Re: The dead economy theory

#30

Post by mr_toad »

Miner49er wrote: post #3

> Turn three: the company that fired its workers to save money discovers that its customers were, in aggregate, other companies’ workers. Revenue growth stalls. The AI subscription that was supposed to be an investment in efficiency turns out to be a contribution to the destruction of its own market. For some companies yeah, but this is why companies are switching to consumption based pricing - so they can charge AI.…

Not possible if they still require goods and services from the non-AI part of the economy. They’d still have to come up with something of value to exchange with that part of the market.
Post reply on HN