= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Davidmanheim comments on The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (267)
The key Hansonian concept is that replacing humans at tasks is still complementation because different tasks are complementary to each other, a la hot dogs and buns; I should perhaps edit OP to make this clearer. It is not obvious to me that craftspeople disemployed by looms would have considered their work to be unskilled, but as that particular industry was automated, people moved to other jobs in other industries and complementarity continued to dominate. Again the question is, what's different now? Is it that no human on the planet does any labor any more which could be called unskilled, that nobody cooks or launders or drives? Obviously not. But there are many plausible changes in regulation, taxes, phasing-out benefits, college credentialism, etc.
I'd pay $5/hour for someone to drive me almost anywhere if availability was coordinated by Uber, but not taxi prices. House cleaning and yard work is not possible for me to find at a price I'd currently pay ($150 can't pay someone to trim your trees, at least not well). I strongly suspect that things would have appeared otherwise to me in 1870, when maids etc. were far more common. This looks to me like a barrier-to-entry, regulatory-and-tax scenario, not "Darn it we're too rich and running out of things for labor to do!"
Unless you want to pin unemployment on changes in people's trustingness, there is nothing obvious about your stated fears of the IQ 70 kid which would have prohibited equal fear in 1920. More to the point, a change in this characteristic is not a change in automation. A few weeks of training may indeed be necessary - I'm sure I live in a high-IQ bubble but I try to be aware of this - but people managed to get jobs requiring a few weeks of training in 1920.
I would favor Basic Income, though I would favor zero taxes on the bottom 20% even more. But this has to do with my beliefs/model/worries about distribution of gains and negotiating power, more than a belief that unemployability due to machines outcompeting many humans at literally everything is the source of the Great Recession and possible Long Depression (though I'm not sure we can get properly stuck in a Long Depression while China, India et. al. are still growing).
OK, so I'm trying to understand what evidence you need to update your belief that the economy seeks equilibrium at a point where employment is high. I'll try to make a structural/theoretical argument against the economic theory in the mean time.
One Micro-economic assumption is that the marginal value of their work is positive, which you claim is true.
I'll point out that coordination costs are significant, and the dynamic of creating and maintaining trust systems for small tasks is very significant - structuring monitoring so that your cost is still negligible is hard. (In the 1920s, the social enforcement mechanisms for preventing defection in contracts were stronger - local work, local families, etc.)
As direct evidence, I'll also point out that your time to invest in employing others to do low-value tasks is limited, and I'm going to guess that despite having significant excess income compare to the US average, you employ very few people (even indirectly) in these ways, and your friends also do not do so. (Is that useful evidence?) Instead, there are tasks you simply chose to leave undone, or avoid needing. For instance, most well to do people I know buy non-iron shirts (for a large premium, $40-$50 extra) instead of having the laundromat, or other cheap labor iron their shirts (99c/shirt to clean and iron them, where I am.) The coordination issues around dropping off, picking up, and remembering the dry cleaning make it annoying, so we avoid it.
Another example; do you have a human assistant in India or China that you farm routine computer based tasks out to? (Emails, editing, managing your schedule, researching random things you saw last month, etc.) Your time is limited, so why not? I'd assume it's trust, training time to get them up to speed on what you need, ongoing costs of coordination driving down value, (and whatever else are you thinking of.)
(Post-post edit: I realize that you are looking at computer replacement of human jobs, but I think that structural unemployment is high because there are few jobs left that it's worth having anyone do who is not highly trained and smart, and as Gwern said, we live in a high-IQ bubble.)