The path of development is from agriculture to manufacturing to services. And this path also led to emergence of a democratic society.
Now what happened when the path is short circuited? We saw how there’s premature deindustrialization due to China.
Now we will see countries never reaching the services oriented economy due to AI.
Could have wide reaching implications not just on economic but political development.
No-Neck-212 on
“I’ve started to call this displacement wave the Fuckening because that feels more visceral.”
Most elder millenial-coded sentence I’ve read in ages.
Current-Function-729 on
What a disappointing scarcity mindset article.
We are about to improve worker productivity at a rate unseen in history. *Sorry, you guys are all fucked.*
Imagine if Andrew yang had been around when the tractor was invented.
ImmortalAce8492 on
For starters, let me state that I’m incredibly skeptical of AI and automation. I am, however, more open to Yang’s premise compared to others.
With that said, I do think we’re going to watch “something” break in the coming years. It was reported today that computer science degrees witnessed their first stagnation or drop in enrollment (in the UC system) since being offered. This degree was supposed to provide a fairly strong pathway to a successful career. Now, it seems like it’s used as a meme among current students.
I remember Tucker Carlson and Ben Shabibo discussing automation and its non-tangible effects. In that discussion, Carlson said he would not accept automation due to its potential to decimate a rural community (e.g., 100 workers turning into 10, effectively destroying the local economy). Interestingly, many people were unhappy to hear this, which I find puzzling. We saw what happened to the Rust Belt; why would we risk repeating something that could alienate communities politically over the long term and create an anti-tech culture, which already appears to be emerging?
Many people laugh at Yang (understandably so), but this is one of those issues I believe many prefer not to acknowledge. I won’t claim to have the answer, but offshoring these types of jobs again seems like a significant miscalculation. Frankly, I see this as something that will only grow. If FAANG and other Fortune 100 companies begin shifting these roles elsewhere, there could be substantial political consequences for whichever party is perceived as responsible. And its really starting to seem like the Dems are going to get dinged on this.
mostanonymousnick on
I think this type of article is exactly what’s wrong with media, bombastic unsubstantiated claims that drive clicks but will be forgotten about so the author can repeat the process infinitely.
algebroni on
> Andrew Yang
Opinion rejected
sleepyrivertroll on
I do think he is right that middle management is going to feel it the most. There are plenty of jobs that are functionally there to support the organization that are at risk. When you need less people to support a larger organization, the organization can increase in scope while reducing manpower.
8 Comments
How is this relevant globally?
The path of development is from agriculture to manufacturing to services. And this path also led to emergence of a democratic society.
Now what happened when the path is short circuited? We saw how there’s premature deindustrialization due to China.
Now we will see countries never reaching the services oriented economy due to AI.
Could have wide reaching implications not just on economic but political development.
“I’ve started to call this displacement wave the Fuckening because that feels more visceral.”
Most elder millenial-coded sentence I’ve read in ages.
What a disappointing scarcity mindset article.
We are about to improve worker productivity at a rate unseen in history. *Sorry, you guys are all fucked.*
Imagine if Andrew yang had been around when the tractor was invented.
For starters, let me state that I’m incredibly skeptical of AI and automation. I am, however, more open to Yang’s premise compared to others.
With that said, I do think we’re going to watch “something” break in the coming years. It was reported today that computer science degrees witnessed their first stagnation or drop in enrollment (in the UC system) since being offered. This degree was supposed to provide a fairly strong pathway to a successful career. Now, it seems like it’s used as a meme among current students.
I remember Tucker Carlson and Ben Shabibo discussing automation and its non-tangible effects. In that discussion, Carlson said he would not accept automation due to its potential to decimate a rural community (e.g., 100 workers turning into 10, effectively destroying the local economy). Interestingly, many people were unhappy to hear this, which I find puzzling. We saw what happened to the Rust Belt; why would we risk repeating something that could alienate communities politically over the long term and create an anti-tech culture, which already appears to be emerging?
Many people laugh at Yang (understandably so), but this is one of those issues I believe many prefer not to acknowledge. I won’t claim to have the answer, but offshoring these types of jobs again seems like a significant miscalculation. Frankly, I see this as something that will only grow. If FAANG and other Fortune 100 companies begin shifting these roles elsewhere, there could be substantial political consequences for whichever party is perceived as responsible. And its really starting to seem like the Dems are going to get dinged on this.
I think this type of article is exactly what’s wrong with media, bombastic unsubstantiated claims that drive clicks but will be forgotten about so the author can repeat the process infinitely.
> Andrew Yang
Opinion rejected
I do think he is right that middle management is going to feel it the most. There are plenty of jobs that are functionally there to support the organization that are at risk. When you need less people to support a larger organization, the organization can increase in scope while reducing manpower.
How that effects society, I am not so sure.