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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: The dead economy theory

#951

Post by mountainriver »

solatic wrote: post #853

The issue I have with these pieces is that AI will not affect the whole economy evenly. The disruptions come in bursts and fits: first digital artists were disrupted (e.g. Adobe Firefly), then junior engineering roles were disrupted, currently "measurer" roles (to quote Matthew Prince's piece on Cloudflare layoffs) are being disrupted, and it's rather foreseeable that occupations like lawyers and accountants are also…

Also our youth unemployment rate is still historically low https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14024887

I’m not sure on the quality of work though

Re: The dead economy theory

#952

Post by ascotan »

my 2cents: FUD

will AI displace jobs: yes undoubtly. But it's not equal even across the tech sector. Outsourcing jobs are extremely at risk. Companies have been offshoring to vietnam, india, malaysia, etc for decades because they're cheaper to hire/pay than americans. But guess who is even cheaper then them? AI. so all the back office work will transition to AI. it's just a matter of time.

But it remains to be seen if corporations will downsize significantly due to AI. I dont currently see it. In fact the opposite is happening. The hype around AI is driving job growth not decline: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/data-shows-surprising-rebound...

The premise of this that AI will cause a catastrophic wipe out of jobs everywhere is FUD. In software we are much more likely to see the cambrian explosion of software companies and the de-FAANGing of corporate america as software development because easier. a pizza team of 6 can now create something amazing that might have once required a huge budget and organization. The consolidation of tech that has been happening since the 90s might actually be reversing.

AI is something that is empowering new modes of business. Think about how media has become democratized in the last 20 years and big corporate media conglomerates are struggling to hold the publics attention because its now easier than ever to publish your own movies/news. AI (i believe) will democratize things that are now held in control by guilds/companies/etc. And maybe this isn't such a bad thing.

Re: The dead economy theory

#956

Post by ilkan »

ofcourseyoudo wrote: post #438
5701652400 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

layoffs.fyi does not show there is any significant rehiring. it is full-steam firing for years.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/mar/10/ai-layoff-r...

Can't recall the link, but a few people said they were rehired at lower pay on contract for their old company (imho I believe they will be severed again when the integration gets better)

Re: The dead economy theory

#957

Post by HWR_14 »

palmotea wrote: post #737
iliaxj wrote: post #457

The article doesn't seem to take his train of thought quite far enough. If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? And ultimately, if AI gets to be so good that it can competently do a lawyer's job, what reason do big law…

> If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? Money. They won't have the money to pay for the tokens, or the best models, because they'll be unemployed. They also won't have the connections to get the clients. When you're…

A better question is "why would AI vendors sell AI access when they can hire four of those associates to start a law firm, give them 5% so they have some compensation, and then cut off all the big name firms from AI".

Re: The dead economy theory

#958

Post by xphos »

unusualmonkey wrote: post #741
palmotea wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? Money. They won't have the money to pay for the tokens, or the best models, because they'll be unemployed. They also won't have the connections to get the clients. When you're…

Sorry that's no realistic. People start businesses, including law firms, all the time with little to no capital. Assuming token costs will be prohibitive assumes: A) tokens will be really expensive and B) you need to fund tokens before you have revenue. Your asserting AI makes the economy more capital intensive, when I think you'll see in practice it's the opposite.

I think all your points are correct except the AI making the economy less capital intensive. Its a new type of input that is suppose to make you vastly more performant not having it by definition puts you at a disadvantage. I.e you need that capital.

I don't necessarily agree with that AI is going to be as super productive as people think but if your assumption it is. It is another tool you'll need to be competitive. That last point just doesn't follow if you believe in AI being powerful

Re: The dead economy theory

#959

Post by yumraj »

itake wrote: post #796
My_Name wrote: post #784

Not many people see that the end result is that when ordinary people stop earning money, and stop buying products, all the money will be used purely for B2B transactions. Money will still exist, but people will not see hardly any of it. To break out of being just a person and start a business you will still need money, but be unable to get any. Thus, the endgame is revealed. You don't need to form a dictatorship, you…

> That inequality is not going down, only upwards. This was talked about 15+ years ago when I was a young student. I saw the writing on the wall and made it a priority to live below my means and aggressively invest. Unfortunately, many of my friends think I am crazy for not "enjoying life" more... We shall see what happens I guess.

What’ll happen to the investments when the markets crash?

Re: The dead economy theory

#960

Post by einpoklum »

It's a false assumption that the mass of people are required for the mass of consumption, at least in terms of sales price: The rich few can engage in luxury, or conspicuous consumption, if I'm reminded of a Veblen term. And the masses? Useless. A bit like how when an economy industrializes, mechanisms its agriculture, or opens up for food imports from already-industrial economies - huge numbers of subsistence farmers become destitute overnight if a transition is not carefuly planned and goes into effect gradually.

Now, it's true that for many goods, their consumption is mass consumption: The rich can't eat 20x or 10x the calories to cover the production of foodstuffs. But those are generally the cheap products.

Post reply on HN