
Andrew Yang’s math on the robot takeover doesn’t check out - paulpauper
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-20/robots-replacing-human-workers-isn-t-supported-by-data
======
riter
This article does seem a bit intellectually dishonest. Its sleight of hand to
point out countries that have more robots than we do, do so with "no ill
effects". There are secondary and tertiary reasons why more automation in SK
or DE does less damage to the blue collar Korean or German than the American
for reasons like corporate culture, social welfare, etc.

Our issues have everything to do with boardroom and executive policy and
profit maximalism.

What bodes well for South Korea and Germany are their social and corporate
welfare systems which are a completely different cultural makeup than ours.

Also, manufacturing as a whole _HAS_ improved throughput over the decades,
just with less humans:

[https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-
manufacturing-...](https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-
manufacturing-thats-cost-americans-millions-of-jobs/)

[https://www.vox.com/new-
money/2016/10/10/12933426/27-charts-...](https://www.vox.com/new-
money/2016/10/10/12933426/27-charts-changing-economy)

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis' chart seems at odds with the chart from
the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

I'd like to see more journalism with less cherry picking and more delivery of
a whole picture.

~~~
fatjokes
Agreed. In fact, Yang's platform isn't so much stop-the-robots, but rather to
make our culture (social and corporate welfare systems) align closer to a
world that is friendly toward robots.

~~~
dominotw
> Yang's platform isn't so much stop-the-robots

no one is claiming that this is his platform though.

~~~
bnjms
Isn’t that the implication of the headline? I.e. “No robots nothing to fear.”

~~~
dominotw
its disputing his claims about effects on society not that yang trying to stop
robots.

~~~
bnjms
As you know, you are right. But that isn’t the superficial reading of “robots
are replacing jobs”. The article makes the point that some people like Bill
DeBlasio will try to outlaw automation and robots.

------
hacknat
This article is badly reasoned. Here are some bad statistical sleight of hands
it engages in:

1\. He claims “Prime age” (25-54) participation is at an all time high. It is,
but overall labor force participation is at a 40 year low.

2\. Median income has risen in the past 4 years than at an point since the
90s. This is such a cherry picked stat, I don’t even... How about this, real
wage growth has barely moved since the 70s (source:
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-
us...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-
real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/))

3\. Companies that invest in IT experienced hiring growth. Sure, but we’re
talking about the entire labor supply not individual company success. Success
at one company often comes at the expense of failure at another (a competitor
who is made irrelevant, etc).

4\. Productivity gains. This is getting insanely hard to measure, as others
have pointed out, but it also seems to be a straight lie. Productivity has
increased since 2010, so I can’t make out what he’s saying there. Also, why
narrow the timeline to 2010? Brief periods of stagnation often occur within
larger trends. Like productivity.

This is just another “head in the sand” think piece, by someone who is part of
a group of people that are desperate to convince everyone that this economy is
actually working fine. Well the labor market hasn’t really recovered since the
last recession, so this wish fulfillment is just wrong.

Manufacturing increased productivity and profit over the last decade while
employing net fewer people. That is the first time in human history that that
has ever happened. We need to take it very seriously.

~~~
papreclip
Regarding point 1, isn't that just due to the fact that baby boomers are
entering retirement age, and retirees are living longer than ever before?

"Prime age participation" seems like what you would want to measure if you're
trying to assess whether the robots are taking our jobs

~~~
Heybud
No, that stat doesn't count 65+ people: "Labour force participation rate is
defined as the section of working population in the age group of 16-64"

------
gumby
This reminds me of one of the business / economics dilemmas of the 90s:
computers were "increasing efficiency everywhere but in the statistics" (also
phrased as "computers are invisible in the statistics").

The answer was that computers allowed new models that weren't measured by the
stats. Just as much labor was done but now you'd have a few people running the
numbers on a financial deal when before it was slower and more shoot-from-the-
hip.

Consider the robots at Amazon warehouses: they are reducing the labor
component, but amazon is growing so much that their hiring is growing as well,
though not as rapidly as it would have without the robots...or do the robots
mean they can open more sites? Who knows?

Plus the robots are leading to more workplace injuries but nobody is tracking
that statistical correlation yet; the reportage is just starting to appear.

The numbers will be visible once it's obvious to everyone that a phase change
has occurred.

~~~
maxk42
What's being omitted in most cases are (1) the increase in productivity
allowed by things like robots at warehouses and (2) the new markets enabled by
new technologies.

The first can be estimated in various ways (revenue per worker, costs per
worker, packages shipped per worker, etc) but the second is not estimable. The
example I like to use is the advent of the automobile. I'm sure there were a
lot of horse-and-buggy drivers or train operators that were decrying the
disastrous unemployment it would cause, but the automobile industry now
employs more people than that industry ever did, not to mention the new
industries it has enabled such as long-haul trucking, taxis, private postal
couriers, ride-sharing, logistics, etc. On top of that the automobile industry
enables new productivity gains in hundreds of not-directly-related industries
such as sales, food service, plumbing, medicine, and so forth.

The average American owns more than one vehicle. They're an affordable, quick
way to do things like work more than a couple miles from your home, haul
goods, or take a vacation. If the horse-and-buggy operators had got their way
we'd have deprived ourselves of many of the luxuries we enjoy today.

~~~
riter
Agreed. Though there is something to be said for skilled and unskilled labor.

Where the advent of the automobile brought about a labor market for machine
operators (taxi drivers, combine driver, etc.), what happens when the machines
automate themselves.

Or the bar to acquire the technical skills of an operator (ML engineer) is so
high and move too fast coupled with institutions reacting far too slow to
adopt policy aiding the unemployed in high skill acquisition.

~~~
maxk42
The bar to acquire the technical skills of an ML engineer could, to continue
the example, be likened to the bar to acquire the skills of an automotive
engineer. It's a technically skilled profession. But the industries it
empowered to arise (drivers) have much lower bars to entry. The point is that
ML will create jobs not just in the _production_ of ML but primarily in the
_application_ of ML. We cannot anticipate what that looks like, but it may be
as simple as a clerk who speaks to a Star Trek-like computer and says
"Computer, extrapolate what this person would look like in ten years and
display."

The more we pursue new technologies boldly without fear of the consequences
the more power we give to the common man to get things done that would've
previously been impossible to him.

------
bit_logic
The article has this near the end:

 _Perhaps AI algorithms are just getting started, and in the coming years they
will automate health care, education, retail and other industries the way
machine tools once automated the assembly line. If that happens, either humans
will have to find new things to do that can’t be easily automated -- for
example, creative jobs -- or something like Yang’s basic income proposal will
indeed become necessary._

Isn't it obvious this is happening right now and increasing? The articles uses
words like "Perhaps" and "If that happens" as if this is some science fiction.
This isn't some possible far future, it's currently in progress right now.
Self driving trucks are already being tested on the roads. And so much more is
coming in other industries.

~~~
mlazos
We are at the top of the hype curve for AI. It’s very good at specific tasks,
ie speech to text, object recognition, but cannot reason at a high level.
Although advances in RL are showing some promise with planning, I don’t think
we’re nearly as close to fully self driving vehicles everywhere in all
conditions as anyone thought. I think it’s hard to predict when advances will
happen that will enable automation in healthcare and education. Most
healthcare recommender systems I’ve seen turn into glorified search upon
closer examination.

~~~
chillacy
Even without high level reasoning, software can replace a lot of routine jobs,
which I think speaks more to the fact that routine jobs are not fit for humans
than the humanness of software.

For example in the physical realm, working an assembly line is mind-numbing,
and relatively unfulfilling. A robotic arm can take over.

And now in the cognitive realm, sticking to a strict call center script or
taking orders at a fast food restaurant is equally uninteresting, and if
speech to text + a decision tree can do that, then that's good.

As long as we don't leave people behind, removing in-human jobs is imo a net
good.

------
ilaksh
I think it should be obvious that current automation technology will wipe out
a very large segment of jobs.

Here's where I think just about everyone is not seeing the full picture. You
have all of the major tech companies and many universities and enthusiasts in
a global race to create AI that has better abstraction abilities and
understands the world better. We don't need to get to something that is
exactly like a digital person in order to approach many of the highest level
jobs. ML can already automatically create world models. We just need them to
be more compositional and accurate. And yet everyone is acting as if this AI
race is guaranteed to just sputter out.

The only way this is really about retail workers and truckers is if Bengio,
Hinton, LeCun, Deep Mind, Tencent, Baidu, Google, Facebook, Open AI, Amazon,
Nnaisence, many other companies, John Carmack, and thousands of independent
geniuses all fail. It certainly is possible. But take a look at the papers
coming out where they are hammering away at creating better disentangled
models and such.

There is no way to predict the future but I think that people are a little too
comfortable.

Basic income and the other radical ideas are going to be relevant for
everyone. Everyone.

------
aazaa
Productivity growth gets the most discussion:

> But the most important piece of data against Yang’s thesis is slow
> productivity growth. If companies are adding robots, AI algorithms or other
> automation to their production processes, it should show up as accelerating
> productivity. But labor productivity growth has slowed to a crawl since
> 2010...

The article presents a graph going back to 1980 in which productivity spikes
as high as 4% but hasn't broken that level since 2010.

Two points:

1\. Productivity, as measured by the government, could be a lagging indicator,
as Yang notes and the article doesn't address.

2\. Productivity growth (as seen in the chart) spikes _after_ recessions. This
could be because underperformers get fired during recessions. There hasn't
been a recession since 2009. No recession means no pressure to cull the
workforce.

Are there any forward-looking measurements of productivity?

~~~
wahern
It's not just productivity that hasn't grown, it's also investment. Here's a
graph plotting net capital formation and net share buybacks back to 1960:
[https://americanaffairsjournal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/1...](https://americanaffairsjournal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/Share-Buybacks-768x451.jpg) (article at
[https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/12/share-buybacks-
an...](https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/12/share-buybacks-and-the-
contradictions-of-shareholder-capitalism/)) Share buybacks crossed investment
earlier this decade, the former on a 60-year uptrend and the latter on a
60-year downtrend.

We would expect investment to track productivity growth, and it apparently
does, which suggests productivity growth _is_ trending down, rather than
simply being hidden or lagging.

~~~
aazaa
I didn't read the article, but a quick scan showed no mention of "interest
rate" or quantitative easing.

I'd be wary of any discussion of buybacks that didn't mention that the price
of money has been kept artificially low for a long time now.

~~~
wahern
Sure, money is cheap. So cheap, in fact, that companies are borrowing money to
fund buybacks. But that begs the questions--if you're not only using free cash
for buybacks, but borrowing cash for buybacks, then what does that say about
capital investment opportunities and the willingness of private investors to
pursue them?

Maybe there's just so much free cash that companies can keep investing
normally while also doing buybacks. But few people would deny that America has
a serious infrastructure problem, both in maintaining our existing
infrastructure, and failing to meet demands for new infrastructure. So there
_are_ plenty of investment opportunities--to the extent public infrastructure
could maintain and boost productivity--and nobody is disputing that these
opportunities aren't being pursued. The question is, how do we direct that
cash to fund those capital improvements?

The old argument was that share buybacks returned money to shareholders, who
are better capable, writ large, of discovering new investment opportunities.
But they're not. All we're seeing are more buybacks and more cash
accumulation. Investors aren't investing, they're just cashing out, which
because there has been so much cash floating around[1] has become a persistent
trend rather than cyclical.

[1] IMO more because of global industrialization, not because of injection of
dollars by the Fed. Reduced capital investment is a global trend. Because of
the structural position of the U.S. in the global economy, much of that cash
is funneled to the U.S., at least for the time being.

------
glup
The sleight of hand here is the qualifier "in the here and now" (notice that
this doesn't make it into the article title). If I've understood Yang's
position correctly, it's that we need to develop policy proactively for this
likely future.

~~~
neaden
No, he pretty clearly claims that job loss at the present is from automation.
Here is a quote from an oped he wrote: "It’s easy to cite incomplete
statistics that ignore the full picture and the situation on the ground, but
I’ve done the math while spending time in struggling communities. Venture for
America, the nonprofit I founded, sent me across this country, to Detroit, St.
Louis, Birmingham, Ala., and other communities, where we attempted to spur
entrepreneurship and create jobs. It was during this time when I spoke with
workers who had lost their jobs to automation and couldn’t find more work. My
organization was helping to create jobs, but automation was displacing tens of
thousands of workers in these states. We were pouring water into a bathtub
with a giant hole ripped in the bottom."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/opinion/andrew-yang-
jobs....](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/opinion/andrew-yang-jobs.html)

~~~
nerdponx
It's both.

------
chillacy
Betting against technology isn't a winning strategy in the long run. There's
idea that I had first heard articulated in Sapiens: that the rules of society
are shaped by the underlying technology (e.g. kings only make sense after
agriculture).

We've been living in a society built around the 1920-1940s when we passed
universal high school and labor union laws, setting up a scenario where
companies needed human labor in factories and human workers could be
compensated well as their companies succeeded.

If technology advances again it only makes sense that we would need to update
the social contracts as well, as we have always done.

~~~
riter
An important meta observation, I agree.

I would add to that a corporate shareholder governance model that takes all
the externalities into account like labor and environment instead of primarily
profit and public perception.

While we're at it, update our model for GDP to include softer concepts like
mental and physical well being / education / etc.

If your metric is money, you become money.

~~~
xster
That's actually exactly one of his central arguments
[https://www.yang2020.com/policies/measuring-the-
economy](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/measuring-the-economy)

------
goles
What would the consequences be of implementing a 10% VAT tax in the United
States per Yang's plan[1]? This seems like an enormous increase in taxes by
American standards. Wouldn't companies just pass this cost on to consumers?

[https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-
tax/](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/)

~~~
bit_logic
A VAT alone would be bad for consumers. But the VAT is being used to fund a
UBI of $1000 per month for everyone. So even the worst case of the full 10% is
passed to consumers (and this doesn't happen in other VAT countries, it's
usually half the VAT passed to consumers), a consumer would have to spend
$120,000 per year in VAT eligible goods (usually essentials like food are
excluded) to negate the $1000 per month UBIfunded by the VAT.

~~~
542458
The VAT+UBI is notably bad for anybody on disability today. Disability today
averages around $1200 per month. With Yang’s UBI, you choose between
disability and UBI - so most people on disability aren’t getting any more
cash. But now they have to pay 10% VAT as well, so they basically see a 10%
decrease in buying power.

Can’t say I’m a huge fan of that, since UBI often gets touted as a “help the
poorest” thing.

EDIT: looks like Yang's position on the stuff below changed. His website used
to say it wouldn't stack with anything, now it says it stacks with some
things, which makes more sense. I'm till not completely convinced though,
since the combination of programs that it doesn't stack with can easily exceed
the $1000/mo limit that make it regressive again. But there's a complicated
analysis there that I'm not qualified to make.

~~~
Heybud
Not entirely true, straight from his website "You can collect both SSDI and
$1,000 a month. Most people who are legally disabled receive both SSDI and
SSI. Under the universal basic income, those who are legally disabled would
have a choice between collecting SSDI and the $1,000, or collecting SSDI and
SSI, whichever is more generous.

Even some people who receive more than $1,000 a month in SSI would choose to
take the Freedom Dividend because it has no preconditions. Basic income
removes these requirements and guarantees an income, regardless of other
factors." [https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-
faq/](https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/)

~~~
542458
Hunh - I'm wrong. In my defense, Yang seems to have revised his plan on this -
his website used to read "We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a
year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces
the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits
would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in
addition to current benefits."

So it looks like they softened this position at some point? But yeah, that's a
much better position than the old one.

------
wenc
It sounds like Noah Smith isn't actually disagreeing with Yang's solution (on
the contrary), only his purported reason for it. From the article:

"Instead of sounding the alarm about robots, proponents of a basic income
should use arguments that aren’t dependent on the threat of automation -- and
there are many good ones."

On the macro level, automation's effects are uneven. At present, the gains
from automation are likely incremental. I suspect the losses from automation
however might be deeply felt by a segment of the population that most of us
rarely interact with. An economist recently put it like this: "the gains are
diffuse, the losses are concentrated".

------
xster
As more of a meta point, it's fascinating to see the corporate media's
response playbook to outsiders like Yang. First stage was a Ron Paul style
pretend he doesn't exist, such as MSNBC consistently omitting him from polling
reporting despite the reporting including numerous competitors polling under
him, or corporate-hosted[0] debates not letting him talk for 30 minutes
straight.

Perhaps he's hanging on for long enough now to progress to the next Bernie
style 16 negative stories in 16 hours[1] level.

[0]: [https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/league-
refuses-h...](https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/league-refuses-help-
perpetrate-fraud)

[1]: [https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-
storie...](https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-
bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/)

------
RenRav
Even if the automation argument is wrong, basic income isn't necessarily
wrong.

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/EW9jbk](https://outline.com/EW9jbk)

------
40acres
NAFTA was a larger contributor to deindustralization than technological
advancement but technology will be on of the leading causes of 'loss of jobs'
going forward. What Yang doesn't account for is the dynamism of the American
economy to create new jobs.

UBI is a solid idea that could be more easily realized in the US through
expansions of the EITC and child credits.

~~~
bnjms
Wouldn’t child credits incentivize children. And shouldn’t we wish to
disincentivized children?

~~~
40acres
Why? An economy needs people to grow, how can you fund universal programs like
this without tax revenue to find it.

~~~
bnjms
At some point we will have to stabilize the economy with a stagnant or
shrinking population. We might as well learn sooner than later if you believe
in global warming. We should consider these incentives now.

------
spoiledtechie
Keep in mind, that now Bloomberg is in the Democratic race, They will be
making hit pieces against Bloomberg's opponents.

------
the_reformation
Re: all the comments that this article doesn't disclose the Bloomberg conflict
of interest. It was published before Bloomberg entered the race. Granted, you
could make the argument that Bloomberg was shadow directing the publication to
attack other fringe Dem nominees, but Noah Smith has been making this argument
on twitter for some time now.

~~~
dmix
Yes, just like how every Washington Post article critical of Elizabeth Warren
is because "Bezo is trying to protect the billionaire class" /s.

I saw a blue checkmark people saying just that in response to WaPo covering
Warren's own staff releasing her law work with corporations. This Bloomberg
stuff comes up constantly too.

idk how otherwise smart people buy into this stuff. It's a very naive view of
how the world works and conspiracy theory tier stuff. Much like gov
conspiracies hiding massive world changing information, newsrooms
unquestioningly follow the orders of the chairman and the editors and staff
all keep it super-secret (despite it being the biggest story of the year if it
leaked, among people in the business of leaks), just to help one guy polling
at 2% beat the other guy polling at 3%. Bias in newspapers is very different
than direct interference.

~~~
akira2501
> It's a very naive view of how the world works

Reporting costs money. If you can control the budget, then you can control
which stories are prioritized and which aren't. If you own the paper, you can
control the editorial section. Pretending that these tools can't be or aren't
being used to influence the population is naive.

~~~
dmix
> Pretending that these tools can't be or aren't being used to influence the
> population is naive.

Fortunately that's not what we're talking about, at least not so broadly.

But saying the stories are artificial or plants directly from the Bloomberg
campaign - basically saying "ignore anything to do with his competitors from
Bloomberg News because it's obviously at the direction of the chairman".
That's what I don't buy.

Another example which would be crossing a line is any reporters getting
silenced or stories getting squashed.

Even worse is the idea there's a broader conspiracy to protect the 1% class
that Bezos et al and all of the big newspaper teams are engaged in is an even
bigger yawn.

If we're just talking about hiring people with a certain bias and budgeting
then eh.. I really don't see the problem with that, which as you mentioned
every paper or editor/management would be guilty of it. That's why we have
more than one newspaper.

I'd rather judge each story on their individual merits, with the obvious
consideration of the source being a factor.

------
sb057
Fascinating that nowhere in the article is it disclosed that the publication
is owned by a competitor of Yang.

~~~
jgalt212
Yeah, like maybe they could put the competing candidate's name in the name of
the news service, or in the URL, or something...

------
caleb-allen
Is my suspicion of Bloomberg publishing a critical article of Yang misplaced?

Both are polling around 4% and are battling for 5th in polls.

Not that that would invalidate the article. Just feels funky.

~~~
paulpauper
not really. It would be in Bloomberg's interest to write articles critical of
Warren or Sanders than focus on Yang, who is polling so low as to be a threat.

~~~
tegfdsc
Bloomberg doesn't have to beat Warren or Sanders to get the nomination. He's
betting that, given a "centrist" alternative, the Dems will prefer it to
Warren and Sanders. I.e. it will be a redux of Clintonites' '16 argument "We
all love Sanders, but he is too far left and we need to win against mean-old
Trump"

Therefore, he only has to beat Yang (since he doesn't really care if he looses
to a Biden candidacy; he joined the race when Biden seemed wobbly)

~~~
tgv
But Bloomberg was a Republican who only recently switched. Why would they
elect him as the Democratic candidate at all? Perhaps the answer is "money",
but in that case, he's got Yang beaten already. From my (very foreign) point
of view, Yang is simply not a serious contender.

~~~
FillardMillmore
What would you define as a serious contender? I'm not a Yang supporter but
very early on, he loaded up most of his many policy positions on his website
and he has been making the rounds in terms of media exposure e.g. the debates,
the Joe Rogan podcast, etc. He's polling at 5th or 6th nationally the last
time I checked.

Trump was a Democrat for a lengthy period of time and the Republicans still
nominated him. I think Bloomberg is betting that the party and its supporters
will not build a coalition around a more left-leaning candidate (Sanders,
Warren) and they desire a candidate who, at least for the intent and purpose
of electability, can appear more moderate to attract the swing voters. He's
also betting that Joe Biden's support will peter out as the campaign moves
along - perhaps a gaffe to top all gaffes? - and Bloomberg will slowly
vampirize Biden's base. At least, that's my hypothesis on his motivations.

I think the problem Bloomberg will find is that many who lean farther left
will not settle for another moderate Democratic candidate who promises only to
carry on the status quo (and of course, to defeat Trump). I think his
likability and charisma (or lack thereof) will become hindrances to him as
this election progresses (Joe Biden, for all his faults, is much more
endearing and 'folksy' if you will). I can't imagine hardened Bernie
supporters rallying around an old New York billionaire who has the gall to
enter as late as he did and basically buy his way into electoral momentum.

~~~
tgv
> What would you define as a serious contender?

Someone with much support, influence and popular appeal.

> I can't imagine hardened Bernie supporters rallying around an old New York
> billionaire

Me neither, but I also can't imagine them rallying around an uncharmismatic,
non-mediagenic guy with primarily nerdy support and the same ideas as the
rest, except for the unrealistic and probably "unamerican" UBI, to phrase it
in the same style.

> the Republicans still nominated him

Democrats aren't Republicans, of course.

------
gkoberger
If I worked at Bloomberg, I'd be pretty upset about Mike Bloomberg's campaign.
It really undercuts their reporting, even if everything in this article is
100% correct.

~~~
mc32
I thought he gagged his reporters from writing about his Democrat opponents?

~~~
fortenforge
This article was published prior to Bloomberg's candidacy announcement.

------
rhema
Should we be surprised that Bloomberg's press is writing about one of his
political rivals? To me, a UBI approach seems inevitable and perhaps moral. At
some point, humanity should reap the rewards of technical innovation so that
we enjoy a safety net and peace.

~~~
gnulinux
I can't see how society can possibly function post-automation without UBI. All
our basic needs will be met by machines, yet thousands will starve because
they don't have a job so they can sit on a desk all day and do nothing?

~~~
perl4ever
The concept of "post-automation" makes no sense. Automation is an eternal
exponential curve that's been going on for ages, there's not going to be a
discontinuity unless we suddenly discover something magic.

~~~
speedplane
> Automation is an eternal exponential curve that's been going on for ages

I think this is Yang's biggest fallacy. He assumes that growth and innovation
will be "eternal exponential". That's a pretty huge assumption. Yes, it's been
relatively true for 100 years, but that's a very small slice of human history.
What if growth isn't exponential? What if the singularity is 1000 years away?

Moore's "Law" and exponential growth are taken as gospel, but there's no
reason why it will continue this way forever. Too many people are thinking
about the singularity and too few are thinking about an impending innovation
stagnation.

~~~
perl4ever
Fine, maybe it will stop. But my point was _if_ it continues with the same
exponent, an exponential curve continues to look the same locally. The
_future_ always looks steep and scary, but the present is the same as ever.

------
AndrewUnmuted
Lately, Bloomberg has been "doing the math" on a lot of the Democratic field.
They've recently done articles on Warren's and Bernie's plans, as well.

Absent of a lot of critical coverage is Michael Bloomberg. Here [0] we have an
article that simply reports on Bloomberg's apology for stop and frisk, but of
course it's behind a paywall.

This isn't suspicious in the least. Right?

I am not a supporter of any of the above-mentioned candidates but I hope
people see what is going on here.

[0]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-03/michael-b...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-03/michael-
bloomberg-reiterates-apology-for-stop-and-frisk)

------
metalgearsolid
Two days ago, on my way home from an errand, I made the mistake of entering
the subway at a digital-only entrance. Tap payment only. The fare box is
shuttered up permanently, leaving me at a loss as to who I'm supposed to show
my paper transfer to.

Having just had a taste of dystopian future injected straight into my veins,
my irritability was at a peak, so I tried to quickly pass through behind
someone else. Fuck it, I have my transfer I paid for anyway right?

A lady in the city's transit uniform instantly appears from behind the fare
box and asks me what the hell I'm doing. I avoided trouble, but, well, I don't
even know what to say really. It is just so absolutely bewildering and
upsetting to have no human in uniform to go show my transfer to, but faster
than I can snap my fingers does one appear to be the muscle.

Capitalist power structures will forever invent stupid shit for humans to do.
The rich and powerful seem to prefer it this way, because whatever the hell it
is for them that replace the simple joys of friends and family, is something
that can only be appreciated when others can't have it. Diamonds.

~~~
captainredbeard
> Capitalist power structures will forever invent stupid shit for humans to do

I bet all power structures do that...

------
stopads
I thought Bloomberg banned their journalists from discussing the democratic
side of the field?

Regardless, any political commentary about any topic coming out of this
organization is highly suspect and shouldn't really be linked to while Michael
Bloomberg is in the race or in office.

------
insickness
This is indeed an imaginary problem. Do we really think that people who do
lower-level jobs can't be trained to do higher-level jobs? The same thing was
said during the industrial revolution. If we make tractors, what will happen
to the people who toil in the fields by hand? Those people ended up running
the machines. Now all of a sudden we are somehow sure that when the people
running the machines get put out of work by higher-order computing, those
people won't be able to adapt? Not buying it. The human mind has a lot of
plasticity. It learns to grow and change based on its environment. IQ has gone
up in developed countries.

We are clamoring for a problem that doesn't yet exist, ready to provide a
solution that won't give people what they need the most: a feeling that they
are a valuable part of society. It's pure arrogance to predict that people
can't learn new trades, that there are people currently functioning in society
who will one day be too dumb to be part of society.

~~~
chillacy
> Do we really think that people who do lower-level jobs can't be trained to
> do higher-level jobs?

It's not going to be easy to retrain the 3 million truck drivers, many of whom
have high school diplomas and are age 60+ men, for one of the high-growth jobs
of today (topped with software engineer, statistician, nurse practitioner).
Especially considering that they're competing against 20-somethings.

And when I say it's not going to be easy I mean we haven't managed to do it so
far.

By the numbers those who have lost their auto manufacturing jobs to automation
have not been retrained very well. Half dropped out of the workforce, and of
those the other half filed for disability (the number of disability
beneficiaries has increased 5x since 1970).

------
m0zg
Presidential candidate caught lying. News at 11. :-)

Seriously, are we going to hold politicians to not distorting the facts now?
Since when is that even a thing? No politician has ever been elected into a
public office without lying. In fact presidential elections could be viewed as
a competition for who lies the most convincingly.

Also: facts do not matter in who gets elected. What matters is how people
_feel_ about a candidate. Facts affect that very little. I think Yang's ideas
are kooky, but of the entire dem lineup he _feels_ the best. He's obviously
very intelligent, he's also much more authentic than all the others,
especially the frontrunners. And he's not a career politician, which is a
major advantage in this day and age.

