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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: The dead economy theory

#611

Post by ihsw »

Galanwe wrote: post #300
rootusrootus wrote: post #226

I know this isn't exactly related, so maybe a low value comment, but it itches in my mind. Years ago I talked with a recruiter at Facebook and they bragged about how many floors of developers they had working on Messenger in just one location (Seattle). What on earth do you do with that many devs on a project like Messenger? I mean, really? I feel like in a way, AI just adds to that weird situation of overcapacity. M…

I thought about that a lot too, and in the end I think it just comes down to stupid economics: What do you want them to do with all this money? 1) Most top US tech companies are flooded of money. Everyone dumps money in the SP500. 2) This money has to go somewhere. You can't just redistribute it as dividends, otherwise it's an admission that you won't grow and giving you more money would be a 0 sum game. 3) So you ha…

[dead]

Re: The dead economy theory

#612

Post by hunterpayne »

njarboe wrote: post #487

"The economy has absorbed automation before; agricultural employment collapsed from ninety percent of the American workforce to two percent and civilization continued." This automation happened between around 1910 and 1930. With WWI, the great depression, WWII, Communist Russia, failure of the gold standard, etc., some argue that is when civilization died.

"some argue that is when civilization died."

Its more that that's when per-industrialized civilization died. Or more specifically when the old medieval, agrarian aristocracies last trace of wealth and power died. At least in the new world they did...they still seem to have some influence in Europe which to Americans is really weird but I guess its to be expected.

Re: The dead economy theory

#613

Post by redwood »

scared_together wrote: post #591
jameslk wrote: post #555

> OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, Microsoft: the combined investment in large-scale AI infrastructure now runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, with projections into the trillions over the next decade. These numbers need an addressable market large enough to justify them. There is only one market that large: the global labor market. It's getting tiring hearing this alarmist view unchallenged hon…

> businesses will continue to need humans to differentiate. Honestly, why? If AI actually becomes capable of replacing large sections of the workforce, why wouldn’t a business composed entirely of AI “employees” outcompete their rivals?

and why would they need human customers to thrive? They have other machine customers! This is the even more dystopian step two that the essay doesn't explore...

Re: The dead economy theory

#614

Post by redwood »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #571
jameslk wrote: post #555

> OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, Microsoft: the combined investment in large-scale AI infrastructure now runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, with projections into the trillions over the next decade. These numbers need an addressable market large enough to justify them. There is only one market that large: the global labor market. It's getting tiring hearing this alarmist view unchallenged hon…

It kinda seems like you are just stating the implied argument this article is targeted towards? Or something else? Do you disagree with, e.g., Daron Acemoglu's position here? Or is there some truism somewhere we are all missing?

Not the OP but I think there is something to the notion that whatever is scarce but in demand is what will be expensive and of course the inverse would be true as well. What this means is humans however they do get resources will be able to put those resources to use abundantly frankly nearly for free on things like digital intelligence but other things will become scarce.. one could speculate about what those things are but even if they're not scarce today they could become scarce in a relative sense where they become relatively valuable and that's what people will be getting selling to each other

Re: The dead economy theory

#616

Post by redwood »

CM30 wrote: post #89

I think the thing companies forget is that a lot of them can't remain functional if a shrinking percentage of the population can afford their products. Yes, you can try and appeal to the rich and sell products/services aimed at their needs. But does that work for most companies? I'd say no. The rich won't buy millions of food items or works of fiction or go to every service available in real life. So, many of those c…

Some businesses will not necessarily need human customers at all

Re: The dead economy theory

#617

Post by cheschire »

whall6 wrote: post #513
Galanwe wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought about that a lot too, and in the end I think it just comes down to stupid economics: What do you want them to do with all this money? 1) Most top US tech companies are flooded of money. Everyone dumps money in the SP500. 2) This money has to go somewhere. You can't just redistribute it as dividends, otherwise it's an admission that you won't grow and giving you more money would be a 0 sum game. 3) So you ha…

Money that people “dump” into the S&P isn’t going to the company’s bank account. It’s purchasing shares on the market that were owned by other third party shareholders. For example, in 2025 Meta was a net purchaser of their own stock ($26 Bn). These companies are awash in cash because they’re generating revenue in excess of their costs. Nothing to do with the amount of money people put into the S&P 500. Secondarily,…

Well, when the company issues shares, then the money goes into their account, right?

Re: The dead economy theory

#618

Post by redwood »

siriusastrebe wrote: post #141

If human labor becomes 'uneconomical', what will happen? Obviously a great deal of social upheaval. But human labor does not actually need to be as expensive as it is. How cheaply could you house, feed, and clothe people? There are parts of the world where people get by on very little income. Of course we could aspire to better living conditions than the world's poorest, but that's what the robot revolution promises:…

There's another way to look at it which is that that which is Coveted but scarce will be expensive and that's what people will be selling. We will create the demand and the supply for things we barely even think about or haven't yet dreamed up

Re: The dead economy theory

#619

Post by redwood »

minimal_action wrote: post #236

I have led AI integration in a university faculty. From this experience I can conclude that good work is only produced when humans are in the loop. It's not a technical barrier, but a categorical one. "Good" work is defined by humans and our judgment is irrational but rooted in our evolutionary survival needs. In other words, AI don't have human motivation by definition. Without human in the loop, the top most motiva…

But that could be done by a smaller and smaller elite cadre.. maybe you could call it the philosopher Kings. But what about the masses
Post reply on HN