Comment by JumpCrisscross
1 year ago
> this AI revolution makes it much harder to move to another job other than a menial one because a lot of the lower level office jobs are affected all at once
If we automate away administration, there is a bonanza to be had. Every person would in essence be a start-up team. That's enough surplus to figure out a transition. I'm not optimistic about every political system finding the solution. But some will, and then it slowly spreads.
Most people don't want to be start-ups. Media is overbiased towards leaders and makers. But the average person just wants to show up, get paid, and go home. They don't want to have to figure out how to constantly reinvent themselves to be marketable.
> Most people don't want to be start-ups
Most people don’t want to do work. The point is there will be terrific surpluses generated at every level of society. That gives those people choices. In some societies, they’ll horde it. But in resilient ones, they’ll recognise the long-term collective interest in ensuring everyone who can make does.
The number of people that want to be part of a start-up is limited, the number of people that want the responsibility that comes with being an entrepreneur is further limited. Those people that would like to be entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs, the rest is more than happy to just have a job and a stable life. Risk appetite and willingness to hyperfocus on one thing at the expense of the rest, including quality of life is something that varies widely from one individual to another.
HN is not an 'average' in this sense at all, more likely an extreme outlier. This is also why the 'gig economy' is such a huge step back.
> Those people that would like to be entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs, the rest is more than happy to just have a job and a stable life
The 9 to 5 job was invented alongside the Industrial Revolution. (And clocks.) Before that, many civilisations were collections of entrepreneurial households. (Plus slaves/serfs/servants.)
The point is civilisation adapts. But the long run, in making some people more productive, has historically been everyone getting richer.
> Before that, many civilisations were collections of entrepreneurial households. (Plus slaves/serfs/servants.)
Those were the exceptions, not the rules, the slaves, serfs and servants were the bulk and what is happening now is that we are re-creating the conditions where lots of people will have nothing to offer but their physical labor, in that sense it is the reverse of the industrial revolution. But couple AI with robotics and you might not need those people at all. What do you propose to do with them? What about the millions of translators, truck drivers, copywriters cab drivers, couriers and so on?
If you propose they become entrepreneurs in what domain should this happen? And what will safeguard those domains from being usurped in turn?
It's interesting how the fact that civilization has adapted to date gets taken as proof that it will always work but that's faulty logic: this time it may not work and even if it worked for society it most definitely didn't work for all of the individuals in it. And this time around it may not work for the majority of the individuals in it.
7 replies →
> The 9 to 5 job was invented alongside the Industrial Revolution.
Industrial revolution enable some entrepreneurial households - that were few of them anyway - to move up. Most people were on that 'serfs' scale. 8 hour workday is regulation 'invented' as reaction to Laissez-faire of the Industrial Revolution.
It’s much easier to be entrepreneurs when you aren’t competing with literally millions of people world wide. The bar is so much higher now. If you wanted to be a blacksmith you were only competing with people within a few day walking distance. If I want to make bespoke software I’m competing with multinational conglomerates.
1 reply →
not only do many people not want to be startups, many people struggle (and fail) to understand the administrative office jobs they currently have.
It is important to remember that innovation doesn't raise all boats, even if it raises the average boat. Some will sink, along with their crew.
We comfortably laugh at the resistant luddites, but many of them died impoverished, were shot, or hung.
That shouldn't be a condemnation of innovation, but simply to point out that there are real winners and losers.