Pet theory: 70% of what we're busy with brings no value outside of keeping people busy/employed, which means automating it and making it 100x faster also brings no value in the end, no matter how much "intelligence" you can deploy
An economist might counter that any such business would loose market share. But, in actuality, a lot busineses are not competing for survival or even for market share but have it due to entrenchment. examples include: ISPs, healthcare, etc
I was reminded about how delusional people are when I was hanging out with some MAGA supporters in the south this weekend. These people adore Elon Musk and what he's done and the way that he runs his companies. They get this mentality because they work in government where their jobs are very cushy, but there is a lot of incompetence and bureaucracy going on, and they hate it. I honestly believe they wouldn't enjoy living in a world where Elon Musk mentality is running everything, including their jobs. That delusion makes them think that a world where Elon Musk is running everyone else's job is better for them.
I'd argue that of the people that Elon hires, many of them probably grew up in an environment where they had the support, love, and care that they need to become great because their predecessors worked in occupation that are not competing for survival. Else you end up with situations like China where the youths just don't have the ability (due to time, money and energy) to put down roots and build up the next generation. Their predecessors planted the seeds and nurtured them to grow value that is then extracted by Elon working the people into the ground and tossing them aside when they are no longer useful.
The problem in China comes from a concentrating economy and corrupt government that barely enforces labor laws. Demand for labor is not low but the number of employers is, so if you want better conditions and get rejected or fired you have nowhere else to go. America is on the same path.
Can you give some examples? A company in survival mode can just as easily freeze hiring, cut benefits, and squeeze the people it already has. Needing experienced workers doesn’t mean it can afford to keep them.
Spirit is the example that bothers me. I’m biased because I loved flying with them, but former employees often describe good pay and working conditions alongside those cheap fares. How do you sustain that when costs rise and there’s barely any cushion for something going wrong? The big airlines have their credit card and loyalty businesses to lean on. What happens to a company trying to compete mainly on affordable flights?
My concern is that treating workers well costs money, and customers generally choose the cheaper or better product. What keeps a company that cuts corners from undercutting one that takes care of its employees?
I asked something similar at a HOPE talk recently about a worker owned software consultancy. Their answer was basically that everyone shares the pain when business gets rough. That sounds reasonable, and I want that model to work. I’m just not sure how well it scales.
>Demand for labor is not low but the number of employers is.
I also don’t think “too few employers” explains China very well. Look at the brutal competition among Chinese car companies, or in coffee, restaurants, and consumer goods. There can be plenty of competing businesses without workers having much leverage, especially when applicants outnumber the jobs available.
Weak labor law enforcement absolutely matters. But I don’t see why fierce competition and bad working conditions couldn’t reinforce each other. “We have to survive” can become the excuse for demanding more from everyone.
I want companies to improve their products while paying people well and treating them decently. I’m questioning whether competition alone gets us there. What makes employers compete for workers by improving conditions, instead of competing for customers by squeezing workers harder?
I figure it'll be like that with general intelligence - bit of as fuss as AI overtakes but humans will keep on humaning, making things, competing for status. Maybe like Jeeves and Wooster with us as Wooster and the AI as Jeeves. Most of their activities didn't bring much value apart from keeping people busy. AI will probably keep improving a few IQ points a year, not exploding but gradually getting pretty good.
For me the more interesting sci-fi is the merge / immortality stuff, curious how that goes.
1. "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." - John Wanamaker