

Man vs. Machine - pointillistic
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/man-vs-machine/

======
AngryParsley
This reminds me of a talk by economist Robin Hanson:
<http://www.vimeo.com/9508131>

Although his presentation is pretty futuristic, a good chunk of it focuses on
the economics of machines replacing people in tasks.

His argument goes like this: There's a range of tasks that need to be done in
an economy. Some of them are more efficiently done by machines and some by
humans. Together, all these tasks grow the economy, and over time machines
have been able to do a greater portion of these tasks efficiently. Also,
machines can be mass-produced, while it takes longer to scale and train
people. While the growth of machines has augmented humans for most of history,
it's certainly possible for machines to replace humans in many tasks, such
that the per-capita income of humans goes down even as the economy grows.

~~~
mparr4
The fact that somebody can make a living going around and giving talks like
that is interesting. It is so incredibly obvious that this is the way that
things are, but it seldom gets said (with a few exceptions).

And, along that line, this is a red flag when put to PGs "What You Can't Say"
essay. It's somehow _impolite_ to say something like this Hanson fellow is
saying, despite the fact that it is both obvious AND true. Ought we not stare
at this straight in the face to better understand how we can best remedy the
situation?

~~~
mparr4
it seems my ability to write coherently decreases significantly after a single
drink...

What I was trying to say was that it is quite interesting that something like
this is "news" and moreover, that we find it surprising.

If we can be just as productive as we were in the 90s, when we were all doing
better (seemingly), why can't we have a similar quality of life?

This all reminds me of an old story posted on HN:
[http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-
in...](http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-
chart-graph)

Record profits and increased efficiency seem like they ought to lead to an
improved quality of life. Shouldn't they?

------
jbooth
This is THE most salient story about the 21st century economy

~~~
yummyfajitas
If only our policymakers accepted this. Unfortunately, they are still clinging
to economic models which reduce the economy to 2 variables (occasionally a few
more) and simple calculus.

Not that they even pay attention to the predictions of those 2 variable
models...

~~~
EwanG
So if you had their attention what would you tell them? If there is a solution
to this problem that lets us all retire without the economy collapsing, I'd be
curious to hear it. As it is we can put off that day for some time, but
eventually you will get to the point where the "thinking machines" have all
the knowledge of how to run our companies. Then the only jobs left will be
those that can't be learned. I don't see all of us becoming artists, and even
if we did, how would we con the machines into paying us for it?

~~~
yummyfajitas
_If there is a solution to this problem that lets us all retire without the
economy collapsing, I'd be curious to hear it._

There is - replacing human labor with robotic labor.

~~~
dctoedt
And then what will occupy the time of energetic, testosterone-driven young men
(mostly) with a wired-in urge to prove their manhood, to better themselves, to
leave their mark on the world?

We already know part of the answer: Street gangs. Drug cartels. Maritime
piracy. Violent jihad.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Yeah, that's why our current recession, chock full of unemployed men, has
caused a crime wave.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/07/us-usa-crime-
idUST...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/07/us-usa-crime-
idUSTRE60613K20100107)

~~~
dctoedt
The U.S. has a social safety net that buffers these tendencies. It's not hard
to find countries that don't.

------
jannes
While the overall message of this article is probably true, I couldn't get
over the fact that her diagrams are stupid and are almost meaningless, because
she is comparing percent changes. A 1% rise in equipment spending doesn't mean
the same as a 1% rise in labor spending. It would've been much smarter to
compare the actual changes in dollars. I just can't take an article like this
seriously.

