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

261–270 of 270 posts

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

#261

Post by watmough »

wazoox wrote: post #258
kahirsch wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll take your bet, but you might want to look at this chart before you hand me your money. Yes, there was a serious recession in 2009. In 2010, world GDP increased by 3.9%, according to preliminary World Bank figures.

Historically, since WWII each rapid spike of oil prices over 2006 100$/barrel for a few months is followed with a recession one year later. If the trend stays true, 2012 will be a recession year.

If you define recovery as a return to the pre-recession peak income less transfer payments, we've never actually recovered.

http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html?GDP#category=GDP&cha...

I suspect this would resonate with a majority of Americans.

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

#262

Post by watmough »

kahirsch wrote: post #234
watmough wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take your bet, but you might want to look at this chart before you hand me your money. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&#... And this one. http://wastedenergy.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/20080301worl...

> I'll take your bet, but you might want to look at this chart before you hand me your money. Yes, there was a serious recession in 2009. In 2010, world GDP increased by 3.9%, according to preliminary World Bank figures.

World GDP in a country with fast-growing economies and slow-growing economies, is not that useful a measure.

As an example, Brazil, China, India have actually been growing at rates that would be miraculous in the US, because they have labor-intensive industry and increasing oil supplies.

Old countries like the US, UK, France have barely moved the needle, and are scraping by through money-printing to finance massive deficits.

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

#263

Post by JeffL »

achompas wrote: post #242
JeffL wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a good point about filling potholes being cheaper than repairing cars, but that wasn't really the point I was making. (I'm not necessarily against filling potholes, just filling potholes excessively as make-work.) I was just pointing out that saying that government spending to hire pothole fillers for the express purpose of stimulating the economy is falling for the broken window fallacy. http://en.w…

It's actually not--you're misunderstanding the broken window fallacy. The classic example goes like this: "Let's break windows and hire people to replace them! That's a stimulus!" OP did not suggest digging holes into the street and filling them, however--fixing road wear-and-tear is an investment in public infrastructure.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the feeling from the OP I was responding to that he was suggesting we fill more potholes in order to stimulate the economy. I'm kind of working off the assumption that we are already filling the important potholes often enough, so filling more potholes just to spend money sounds like make-work.

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

#264

Post by cma »

Unseelie wrote: post #227
cma wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be plenty of jobs: http://books.google.com/books?id=ErEXMCudMZ4C&lpg=PA77&#... If we run out of jobs, people will start wearing coats made of auditable solved captchas or something, just to prove that they commanded more human labor than the next guy.

Some people may, but especially in this specific example, there's a large societal force that would positivley squash such behavior. We call it 'fashion' (which is actually quite often linked to inbuilt, brain-hardware based ideas about aesthetics that we can't change)

In the example I linked it is exactly the opposite; aesthetics changing based on the cost/labor to produce rather than anything fundamental to the brain like symmetry, etc.

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

#265

Post by achompas »

JeffL wrote: post #263
achompas wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually not--you're misunderstanding the broken window fallacy. The classic example goes like this: "Let's break windows and hire people to replace them! That's a stimulus!" OP did not suggest digging holes into the street and filling them, however--fixing road wear-and-tear is an investment in public infrastructure.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the feeling from the OP I was responding to that he was suggesting we fill more potholes in order to stimulate the economy. I'm kind of working off the assumption that we are already filling the important potholes often enough, so filling more potholes just to spend money sounds like make-work.

That's a good take, but the broken window fallacy assumes the intentional destruction of previous output. Thanks for clarifying your point.

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

#266

Post by patrickk »

wallflower wrote: post #248
patrickk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can replace my watch with a smartphone app. That means the watchmaker, supply chain, retail store, and clocksmith are all out of business." I work as an iOS app developer, a role which didn't exist just three years ago. There are millions of developers out there on the various smartphone platforms, a market that Apple spawned after seeing what hackers could do by jailbreaking iDevices and loading apps on the iPhon…

> I work as an iOS app developer, a role which didn't exist just three years ago. I respectably counter your statement with the idea that the job category existed, just not the platform specialization. > I wouldn't have a job now if I weren't for the iPhone You could have been able to find a job. What was your background before iOS development? (or was iOS development your first job) I'm not trying to disprove the fa…

Well ok, technically the job category (smartphone app developer) existed, but it was insignificant compared to how important the role has become. Apple basically showed everyone else how to do it[1]. I've read that trying to launch an app on a platform like Symbian in the "old" days was an utter nightmare. You would have to deal with carriers and try to convince them to approve your app in some cases.

iPhone development was my first "proper" job after finishing a masters degree. I'm not currently making money from iOS apps, although I hope to once I gain a better understanding of iOS development. The company I work for is doing some pretty cool stuff with apps, I hope to be able to talk about a project we've going on here on HN in a few months.

I hear what you're saying about net zero gain from a few technology displacing old jobs. I think that's just a short-term phenomenon. If apps displace some jobs in more traditional industries (e.g. the apps in my company aim to replace paper-based product catalogs with iOS/Android apps that do the same thing, except faster, better, cheaper) then I think:

a) more jobs will be created in the app development space

b) the productivity gains, cost savings and perhaps new market opportunities offered by apps will allow the beneficiary company to become more profitable, leading to job growth in that company. This has a knock-on effect also for those who deal with the beneficiary company (e.g. suppliers getting more business, customers getting better prices, better service etc.)

I believe a and b will lead to net jobs gain in the longer term, rather than jobs lost overall by the printing company and related companies.

[1] They stumbled on the model of an app store by accident. Steve Jobs thought that all iPhone apps would be web-based rather than native apps when the iPhone launched in 2007. Luckily, Apple was smart enough to recognise the opportunity, creating a river of cash for Apple.

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

#267

Post by OWaz »

baddox wrote: post #253
hugh3 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little late to this party, but: Short answer: technology destroys jobs for dumb people and creates jobs for smart people. Until now this has been okay, because there have still been enough dumb jobs for all the dumb people. But as technology continues to progress, we (without genetic engineering or eugenics) run into the point where we have more dumb people than useful things for them to do. There are no jobs d…

> Short answer: technology destroys jobs for dumb people and creates jobs for smart people. It sounds like you're only considering high-tech jobs, like computer programmers or engineers. Those aren't all the jobs that technology creates, not by a long shot. Think about pizza deliverers, call center workers, fast food workers, etc.

Put aside service jobs like pizza delivery or baristas and think about manufacturing jobs or “dirty” jobs. Regarding manufacturing jobs I tend to think that technology didn’t replace those kind of jobs instead we opted to buy goods made in other countries. I can't find any current examples but the article below states that in 2007 the USA exported $4.6 billion in raw cotton and imported $52.4 billion in processed cotton goods. That’s a lot of money leaving our economy. We really need to start manufacturing again and as a nation get in to the mindset that it’s better to save and buy quality than to buy quantity. http://www.suite101.com/content/us-cotton-trade-statistics-a...

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

#268

Post by suivix »

SWtechie wrote: post #256
pragmatic wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Great Stagnation - http://www.amazon.com/Great-Stagnation-Low-Hanging-Eventuall... We've picked all the low hanging fruit - in technology and resources. Our cars haven't really change much in 100 years. Same basic engine, just added computers (we did that in the _1970'_). We're only incrementally improving technology (cars with navigation). Our current innovations (Twitter, FB, Google) don't produce many jobs and…

Speaking only to the car comments -- although they put in question the rest. Bull. There have been significant improvements to cars in just the last several years, and the 1970s (and before) were a complete disaster for cars. There has been great progress. Today's cars are way better than anything preceding them, beginning with build quality, through handling and braking, and ending with emissions. Not perfect, but v…

Don't forget the incredible advances in safety in modern cars.

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

#269

Post by MissBridgit »

jonnathanson wrote: post #221
temphn wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6) The educational level (or mean cognitive ability) of the US population has been decreasing just as the cognitive thresholds for gainful employment are steadily increasing. You'd say education if you were on the left and might say cognition if you were on the right. 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…

Environment plays a huge role in the development and maintenance of IQ. And socioeconomic status (SES) can greatly affect the conduciveness of a child's environment to fostering IQ development. Accordingly, since more and more children are being born into low-SES households, it isn't surprising to see average IQ scores in decline. Consider the following tidbit from the most recent national census: 50% of all babies b…

Have to say something. Using statistics to quantify a change in IQ based SES is similar to using statistics to show that an algae bloom is due to increased sunlight only. The drop in IQ has more to do with limiting educational opportunities and community supports for struggling families. Yes, our government has let us down in many ways but it is a generational problem of trying to give the people what they need to survive and be successful without the people really understanding what it truly is, to be successful. Mass media promotes an idea of success that is NOT successful in terms of true human success and the average Joe buys into such fallacies. It should never be a handout but a hand up to a better life, short term, look for solutions, educate, change, move on. If that is not possible for a "family" to do this, it needs to be discovered specifically why, not just surface appearances of what may truly be stopping appropriate growth and development of the human being. It is never one thing only, there is always a system involved and the system is broken somewhere along the way preventing it from working entirely successfully. Who said it takes a VIllage? It really does, a whole village of people concentrated on the development of each individual within that village to ultimate success and success does not equal money or power unless it is a means to an end for change and a better future for all. 1. topnotch prenatal care for all 2. topnotch education and services from birth, identifying potential problems in development right from the start and providing supports to prevent issues 3. Proper diet and nutrition education and availability, across the board 4. Fewer identifiers of low SES on a daily basis for growing children to prevent the stigma from pushing them into poor decision making. 5. A village for every child

It is all out there, you have to fight for it sometimes and sometimes you are treated with suspicion just because you want to fight for it, but in the end, it will always be worth it, for posterity's sake.

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

#270

Post by gwern »

dxbydt wrote: post #99
Eliezer wrote: post #71

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…

>5) The Thiel hypothesis: Recent technological developments are intrinsically more boring than past technological developments; Shouldn't that be the Cuban hypothesis ? Cuban in 2006 http://blogmaverick.com/2006/07/12/the-internet-is-old-news-... Cuban in 2007 http://blogmaverick.com/2007/08/27/the-internet-is-still-dea... Cuban in 2008 http://blogmaverick.com/2008/02/10/the-internet-is-officiall... Thiel said it in…

> Shouldn't that be the Cuban hypothesis ?

Stigler's law demands we call it the Thiel hypothesis.

(Stigler, of course, did not invent/discover it: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stigler%27s_l... )

Post reply on HN