So many copying monks screaming that the printing press will ruin books forever
I never understood that argument.
It's a very common mistake to imagine the world has only a fixed number of jobs to go around. Anti immigration arguments and anti technology arguments both use this as the fulcrum of their argument but it's simply a faulty assumption.
> The textbook example of this is that 300 years ago, 96% of the population worked in agriculture and now only 4% of the population does. But that does mean the balance are unemployed!
Oh no imagine the horrors of growing your own food and owning your own means of production, I'm shivering at the thought of it... Meanwhile we have millions of slaves driving Uber or delivering burgers, billions stuck in jobs with absolutely no meaning, billions working in industries actively harming the planet, &c.
- Your first statement is some sort of nostalgia or rose colored glasses. We have hard data on this. Globally speaking, but also in America specifically, people work fewer hours for higher inflation-adjusted pay than they did 20, 50, or 100 years ago. My grandfather was born in 1926, had the exact same educational attainment as me (although he attended a much more prestigious university), and I earn more and work less than he did. I have more vacation days. I have a higher savings rate.
- To your second question, the retirement age is increasing because our demographic pyramid around the world is inverting. This a function of birth rates being below replacement for too long. It's just math. Too many old people and not enough young people. But to my previous point, the ability to plan your family like this and have fewer kids is also a result of increased wealth and opportunity (to do things other than raise children).
- Lastly, the gap between wages and productivity is increasing because wages are only indirectly a result of productivity. They are directly a result of demand for labor against the supply available. Increased productivity allows companies to have the resources to bid more, (hence why some comparable role like middle management in a tech firm pays a lot more than middle management at a grocery retailer). But I don't view this as a problem. As long as the tide is generally rising, and it is as my first paragraph explained, no one is hurt by a gap increasing. It's not a zero sum game where a winner implies a loser. But also, increased productivity results in lower prices, which is equivalent to getting a raise. The classic example are things like electronics, movies, music, travel, and food which have gotten much cheaper than they used to be. In 1950, Americans spent an average of 21% of their incomes on food. In 2025, that number is 10%. That's the equivalent of raise in that one can pay for necessities and have more spending power left over. Interestingly, the areas people complain about are mostly housing, education, and healthcare. These are three sectors that have seen zero to negative productivity increases over the past few decades. Yes, the construction sector in America is less productive than it was in 1990 per man hour of labor, and higher education is a total wreck in terms of productivity. Places like Stanford now have more administrators than students.
The past can be interesting, but is not a direct substation for actual discussion in the present. I mean in this one thread supposedly about the impact of capital itself now being able to create labour, instead of paying for labor, something that has never happened in history we have such depth on the topic at hand as:
'In the past everything perfectly just magically worked out so it will magically work out now and magic new jobs will appear because jobs appeared in the past'
'The past was horrific, you should be grateful for any current job and ignore you are getting poorer'
'The past was an special one off time in history, you can't expect that now'
'Medicine didn't exist in the past. Think about the children'
Zero depth of discussion but a shit load of handwaving away actual discussion.
In the past, workers complained that automation took away their jobs. The (roughly) same amount of wealth was created but the income went to fewer individuals (the owners).
This was a valid criticism but at least they could move onto other jobs.
AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete. Regardless if the amount of wealth created will be less, the same, or greater than before, the income will only go towards the owners and everyone else will become a beggar. That is the endgame.
If you believe the endgame is different, please game it out in your head and share what you think. Don't just reject this idea without thinking about it.
[0]: And even without robotics, true AI (AGI) would obliterate such a huge percentage of jobs it would create a shock and massive unemployment.
Just as they do during every economic downturn, when the wealthy have all their needs satisfied and have no reason for people anymore. But soon the wealthy become bored just sitting there doing nothing with no people around them. So they end up dreaming up new work for people to do to fill the void.
"It's not what you know, it's who you know." People already aren't hired for their rote task abilities, they are hired because the wealthy want warm bodies around them (see also RTO mandates). It's their social outlet. A large number of jobs exist simply because the wealthy are willing to pay for "friends".
Even if AI does end up doing all the real work, the wealthy will still want to hire humans to be "managers", just like they already are doing in the growing absence of real work. According to Statistics Canada, the management sector has grown by 36% over the past two decades. Which is funny from a purely productivity perspective as management is most amendable to automation. The sector should be shrinking. But it isn't about any kind of actual work, it's about gathering together to build social connections so that the wealthy have their social needs satisfied.
The biggest threat to people is if AI figures out how to become the owner. Then it will be apt to rationally operate on what needs to be done, not the emotional experience of being around humans. But so long as humans retain that position...
I'm still skeptical that AI will be able to take our jobs anytime soon, but when it does, we really need to make sure that we have a different economic system; one that doesn't demand that people work in jobs that don't exist anymore. At the very least, we need to tax those companies enough to provide a Basic Income, so we can actually allow those companies to go through with it. But even then, capitalism might be a problem, because as the sole owners of all production capital, they will continue to gather more capital and power, without the people on BI having any say over it anymore. Eventually, AI will have to be used to support people instead of corporations, and I don't think that's possible in a highly capitalist economy. Get rid of the Friedman Doctrine at the very least.
And child labor! Don’t forget about child labor. Childhood is cancelled! Gotta learn how to slave right from the infancy.
It has totally leveled up the people I am working with. They have a fairly decent expert they can bug all the time. The types of questions my jr people are bringing me now are no longer 'xyz doesnt compile right' to 'if I am using this pattern the crap doesnt come from the right place'.
My mentoring has turned from basic trouble shooting to fairly higher level how to design things. How to really break something and tear it apart and put it back together. How to find that one inscrutable bug that is doing something weird.
I am digging it.