ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

Post by roncesvalles » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:04 PM UTC

awesome_dude wrote: post #249

paxys wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why will we need 1000 companies tomorrow to do the same thing that 100 companies are doing today? If they are really so efficient because of AI then won't 10 companies be able to solve the same problems?

This is one of the key "inefficiencies" of the private sector - there might be one winner at the end of the day providing the product that fills the market niche, but there was always multiple competitors giving it a go in the mean time. A recent example, Mitchell Hashimoto was pointing out that he wasn't "first to market" with his product(s), he was (at least) SEVENTH

Post by nine_k » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #193

whatisthiseven wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But will it? My prediction is no, because productivity gains must benefit the lower classes to see a multiplier in the economy. For example, ATMs being automated did cause a negative drop in teller jobs, but fast money any time does increase the velocity of money in the economy. It decreases savings rate and encourages spending among the class of people whose money imparts the highest multiplier. AI does not. All t…

> My prediction is no, because productivity gains must benefit the lower classes to see a multiplier in the economy. Baumol's cost disease hurts the lower classes by restricting their access to services like health care and education, and LLMs/agents make it possible to increase productivity in these areas in ways which were once unimaginable. The problem with services is that they're typically resistant to productiv…

Post by carlosjobim » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

Devasta wrote: post #281

carlosjobim wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have to grow out of those kind of dreams. That's like a kid dreaming that when he grows up he'll eat ice cream for dinner every day. People when they mature have an innate desire to work. It is good for body and mind. If you're curious about the world, you'll have to do some work one way or another to achieve your goals and satisfy your curiosity. If "society" is just a function of basic needs, then there's plenty…

> People when they mature have an innate desire to work. It is good for body and mind. That doesn't mean it has to be wage labor though.

Post by boxedemp » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:16 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #129

danielbln wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to bet that you are a millennial or older? We need our big screens for $IMPORTANT work (buying big things, money stuff, etc.). GenZ tends to be less bothered by it and just does it all on the tiny screen in their pocket. It's time to schedule a colonoscopy.

What if millennials are good at both and are choosing the right too for the job?

Post by bloomingeek » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:21 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #284

idiotsecant wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and other fairytales. The only solution here is to stop tying people's value to their productivity. That makes a lot of sense in the 1900s but it makes a lot less sense when the primary faucet of productivity is automation. If you insist on tying a person's fundamental right to a decent and secure life to their productivity and then take away their ability to be productive you're left with a permenant and growin…

Who ever said you have the right to a decent a secure life? People don’t universally agree about this. Some of us posit that we will never escape a state of competition for fundamentally scarce resources. And that the organizing principle of a free society should be peaceful coexistence, not mandatory cooperation. You figure out your own economic security, I’ll manage mine.