I think as AI becomes more pervasive and starts destroying more jobs, and if we as a global society aren't willing to entertain UBI as a solution and want to keep people going into work, then we...
I think as AI becomes more pervasive and starts destroying more jobs, and if we as a global society aren't willing to entertain UBI as a solution and want to keep people going into work, then we need to quickly start to figure out what jobs we want people to do, or what we're going to need. Caregiving should definitely be considered a priority, simply because of how many countries are becoming demographically top-heavy (something which has been on the political agenda in Japan for a very long time already). More generally, interpersonal jobs such as carers, personal trainers, counsellors, coaches, social workers, etc... These would be (IMO) good, AI-proof areas to start training people in now, as well as trying to make them culturally more laudable and better paid. Carers in particular are chronically underpaid in the UK, despite the essential nature of the job.
If we’re thinking about an economy as a whole, I don’t think of improved productivity as increasing the number of jobs because when the economy is good enough, the limit is set by the size of the...
If we’re thinking about an economy as a whole, I don’t think of improved productivity as increasing the number of jobs because when the economy is good enough, the limit is set by the size of the working-age population. And looking at the statistics, Germany seems to be doing well there?
Although, I suppose automation might be partly responsible for Germany having a good economy? Also, more immigration is likely when the economy is good, if it’s not otherwise restricted.
For local economies, the number of jobs created or lost in the area matters a lot. I could see automation affecting it either way.
Yeah, I basically agree with the idea that automation isn’t obviously resulting in unemployment in richer countries where it’s used a lot. I wonder, though, if we should look at its effects on...
Yeah, I basically agree with the idea that automation isn’t obviously resulting in unemployment in richer countries where it’s used a lot. I wonder, though, if we should look at its effects on countries that aren’t doing well?
Consider the challenge of getting industry going in a poor country. It’s obviously going to be easier when there are low-tech industries where lower labor costs matter, like making clothing. If clothing ever gets fully automated, that makes it that much harder to start an export industry.
Singapore is in a completely different situation than Vietnam or China. It's a tiny state with barely any arable land that was founded as a trade port, and built its whole economy on trade and...
We are likely going to see Vietnam follow the same path, and possibly, although less likely, Signapore.
Singapore is in a completely different situation than Vietnam or China. It's a tiny state with barely any arable land that was founded as a trade port, and built its whole economy on trade and more recently, financial services. It didn't really have an agrarian economy to begin with, nor does it have a large population of cheap labor because it's a small country with a very high GDP per capita. It is an economic powerhouse, far more so than China relative to population, but took a very different path to get there.
I'm down with Green Marxism, as long as we can throw the whole "dictatorship of the Proletariat" portion away and stick with basic human rights and a fundamental level of democratic governance....
I'm down with Green Marxism, as long as we can throw the whole "dictatorship of the Proletariat" portion away and stick with basic human rights and a fundamental level of democratic governance.
That being said, we're in a better position to do long-term economic planning towards a post-scarcity economy than ever, presuming adequate exploitation of energy sources.
Solar/wind/tidal/hydroelectric/geothermal + batteries gets us most of the way towards a decentralized, community-based power distribution model that enables local control of production in a way that obviates many of the problems with traditional Marxist centralized planning on an excessively broad scale.
It helps but saying it gets us “most of the way” seems optimistic, considering the world’s dependency on fertilizer. And I don’t think local control changes much when it comes to every prosperous...
It helps but saying it gets us “most of the way” seems optimistic, considering the world’s dependency on fertilizer.
And I don’t think local control changes much when it comes to every prosperous county’s dependency on international trade. This is why embargoes are so effective at wrecking economies, even if sanctions often don’t work for achieving other goals.
Figuring out how to build a self-sufficient economy (smaller than most of the world) where any of us would like to live is an interesting challenge, but we’re very far from knowing how to do it.
Well, yes, international trade is ancient. (Another example is the grain trade connecting what’s now Ukraine to the Roman empire.) But it seems a stretch to call it “globalization” since it wasn’t...
Well, yes, international trade is ancient. (Another example is the grain trade connecting what’s now Ukraine to the Roman empire.) But it seems a stretch to call it “globalization” since it wasn’t worldwide. And before the early modern era, most things that ordinary people need were manufactured locally.
I’m not saying it’s at all practical, but much as I thought Biosphere 2 was an interesting but flawed experiment, I think it’s interesting to think about how a self-contained economy might be built. Or maybe it’s not completely self-sufficient, but could go without trade for long periods?
This is kind of the easy version of wanting to build a Mars colony. It’s still extremely hard, but at least you could pick somewhere with a nicer climate.
I think as AI becomes more pervasive and starts destroying more jobs, and if we as a global society aren't willing to entertain UBI as a solution and want to keep people going into work, then we need to quickly start to figure out what jobs we want people to do, or what we're going to need. Caregiving should definitely be considered a priority, simply because of how many countries are becoming demographically top-heavy (something which has been on the political agenda in Japan for a very long time already). More generally, interpersonal jobs such as carers, personal trainers, counsellors, coaches, social workers, etc... These would be (IMO) good, AI-proof areas to start training people in now, as well as trying to make them culturally more laudable and better paid. Carers in particular are chronically underpaid in the UK, despite the essential nature of the job.
UK unemployment is very low, so it doesn't seem like jobs getting eliminated by AI is currently a problem? Maybe it will be someday.
Is there evidence that robotization increases the overall size of the workforce? I wonder how that works?
If we’re thinking about an economy as a whole, I don’t think of improved productivity as increasing the number of jobs because when the economy is good enough, the limit is set by the size of the working-age population. And looking at the statistics, Germany seems to be doing well there?
Although, I suppose automation might be partly responsible for Germany having a good economy? Also, more immigration is likely when the economy is good, if it’s not otherwise restricted.
For local economies, the number of jobs created or lost in the area matters a lot. I could see automation affecting it either way.
Yeah, I basically agree with the idea that automation isn’t obviously resulting in unemployment in richer countries where it’s used a lot. I wonder, though, if we should look at its effects on countries that aren’t doing well?
Consider the challenge of getting industry going in a poor country. It’s obviously going to be easier when there are low-tech industries where lower labor costs matter, like making clothing. If clothing ever gets fully automated, that makes it that much harder to start an export industry.
Singapore is in a completely different situation than Vietnam or China. It's a tiny state with barely any arable land that was founded as a trade port, and built its whole economy on trade and more recently, financial services. It didn't really have an agrarian economy to begin with, nor does it have a large population of cheap labor because it's a small country with a very high GDP per capita. It is an economic powerhouse, far more so than China relative to population, but took a very different path to get there.
Is there any particular reason you keep saying Signapore instead of Singapore?
Ah, heh. So just a simple malapropism/misspelling? I thought maybe it was a joke reference I had never heard before, or something. :P
I'm down with Green Marxism, as long as we can throw the whole "dictatorship of the Proletariat" portion away and stick with basic human rights and a fundamental level of democratic governance.
That being said, we're in a better position to do long-term economic planning towards a post-scarcity economy than ever, presuming adequate exploitation of energy sources.
Solar/wind/tidal/hydroelectric/geothermal + batteries gets us most of the way towards a decentralized, community-based power distribution model that enables local control of production in a way that obviates many of the problems with traditional Marxist centralized planning on an excessively broad scale.
It helps but saying it gets us “most of the way” seems optimistic, considering the world’s dependency on fertilizer.
And I don’t think local control changes much when it comes to every prosperous county’s dependency on international trade. This is why embargoes are so effective at wrecking economies, even if sanctions often don’t work for achieving other goals.
Figuring out how to build a self-sufficient economy (smaller than most of the world) where any of us would like to live is an interesting challenge, but we’re very far from knowing how to do it.
Well, yes, international trade is ancient. (Another example is the grain trade connecting what’s now Ukraine to the Roman empire.) But it seems a stretch to call it “globalization” since it wasn’t worldwide. And before the early modern era, most things that ordinary people need were manufactured locally.
I’m not saying it’s at all practical, but much as I thought Biosphere 2 was an interesting but flawed experiment, I think it’s interesting to think about how a self-contained economy might be built. Or maybe it’s not completely self-sufficient, but could go without trade for long periods?
This is kind of the easy version of wanting to build a Mars colony. It’s still extremely hard, but at least you could pick somewhere with a nicer climate.