I don't understand. The leaders are telling us that, with the advent of AI, we are going to need a smaller workforce. Including in Agriculture, where robotics will play a role in force reduction.
You can't have it both ways: you can't be telling us that AI will force people of of jobs and we will need UBI, while decrying reduction in population.
1. Even if one assumes that someone claiming AI will reduce the need for workers decrying population decline is hypocritical, your complaint falls flat because you haven’t shown it’s the same people making the same claim. You’ve fallaciously used the term “leaders” to imply they’re a monolith but “leaders” almost certainly have different views. Some believe AI will reduce jobs and are not decrying a population decline while others believe AI will not reduce the workforce and are decrying a population decrease.
2. Of course one can decry a shrinking population even if one believes we don’t need as many workers. Heck, one can decry a shrinking population even if one believes the population should be smaller depending on why the population is shrinking and how much it’s shrinking.
For example, if the population is shrinking by 2% but if jobs will reduce by 1% that could be bad. If population is decreasing an appropriate amount, that could still be bad if it’s decreasing because of say a deadly pandemic killing people off. Or the population decrease can still be bad because the decrease is in the kinds of people the future economy needs.
3. Just because a smaller workforce is needed doesn’t mean a population decline is a good thing. If that smaller workforce can provide significantly greater output a larger population is a good thing so more people can enjoy the benefits of that greater output.
4. Finally, even if population decline is a good thing thanks to AI and the rate and nature, etc of the population decline is perfect it could still be a bad thing if the timing is wrong and the population decline happens way before AI starts killing those jobs.
An argument against that thinking, is "the fewer the better" can be taken to the extreme where humans are put to the brink of extinction.
Another argument, is there is plenty of room for the increase of humanity. Using technology, humans could populate other planets in our solar system and beyond.
the exact numbers and predictions are likely off by some amount, but the areas of labour and services that are bieng effected are correct, and are quite scary to contemplate.
impacts to agriculture and building trades , trucking, could spill over, and see project set backs for everything, except, of course, the highest funded industrys.
Hope you folks down there got some kind of, get down and dirty work your way out of trouble plan, you have been keeping secret, just might need it.
unskilled labor is key to the supply side for things like homes. i agree that the default path shouldn’t just be tolerating totally non-discretionary illegal immigration because we are unable to achieve the political will to create a more substantive guest worker program, but voters are largely not the sharpest knives and what can you do.
Yeah, that's called marketing and spin: "illegal immigrant" somehow becomes "undocumented newcomer" in order to deflect from reality.
> How does an influx of unvetted, unskilled newborns somehow power the global economy?
Well at least in theory, these newborns are directly funded by one or more productive, lawful members of society who are directly invested in their upbringing and outcome, rather than publicly-furnished social safety nets.
The sad truth is that the vast majority of taxpaying citizens will never be able to fund their share of the public services they are provided - we don't need to import more of these people when we cannot take care of our own.
> HN accounts should come with free clown makeup.
Hit a nerve, did I? I'm thrilled with what $30B is going to buy in this department.
The point about housing is quite clearly false. There are around 147 million residential housing units in the US. And there are around 1.4 million built each year (this number fluctuates a lot: it was a third of this during the mortgage crisis, for example). But even if new residential construction is cut in half - that's a change of 0.5%.
It's all right to have an opinion, but it's important to realize when it's based on data and when on emotion.
The U.S. has underbuilt housing for some time [0], so it seems likely that cutting production in half would have a significant effect, even if it’s partly offset by lower demand in the form of lower immigration.
I think you hit downvote before really considering my point. There is simply no way that a change of 0.5% is significant - no matter your politics. Fluctuations of this magnitude happen with or without Trump every few years.
The relevant comparison is to annual construction, not the total inventory. Looking at recent data, variations of 0.5 percent (~700,000) have happened, but they were due to large shocks like Covid or post-Covid inflation.
This argument feels analogous to saying “there’s no way a granola bar can affect your hunger, its calorie count is negligible compared to all the calories your body has stored.”
I don't understand. The leaders are telling us that, with the advent of AI, we are going to need a smaller workforce. Including in Agriculture, where robotics will play a role in force reduction.
You can't have it both ways: you can't be telling us that AI will force people of of jobs and we will need UBI, while decrying reduction in population.
Lots wrong in your comment.
1. Even if one assumes that someone claiming AI will reduce the need for workers decrying population decline is hypocritical, your complaint falls flat because you haven’t shown it’s the same people making the same claim. You’ve fallaciously used the term “leaders” to imply they’re a monolith but “leaders” almost certainly have different views. Some believe AI will reduce jobs and are not decrying a population decline while others believe AI will not reduce the workforce and are decrying a population decrease.
2. Of course one can decry a shrinking population even if one believes we don’t need as many workers. Heck, one can decry a shrinking population even if one believes the population should be smaller depending on why the population is shrinking and how much it’s shrinking.
For example, if the population is shrinking by 2% but if jobs will reduce by 1% that could be bad. If population is decreasing an appropriate amount, that could still be bad if it’s decreasing because of say a deadly pandemic killing people off. Or the population decrease can still be bad because the decrease is in the kinds of people the future economy needs.
3. Just because a smaller workforce is needed doesn’t mean a population decline is a good thing. If that smaller workforce can provide significantly greater output a larger population is a good thing so more people can enjoy the benefits of that greater output.
4. Finally, even if population decline is a good thing thanks to AI and the rate and nature, etc of the population decline is perfect it could still be a bad thing if the timing is wrong and the population decline happens way before AI starts killing those jobs.
[flagged]
An argument against that thinking, is "the fewer the better" can be taken to the extreme where humans are put to the brink of extinction.
Another argument, is there is plenty of room for the increase of humanity. Using technology, humans could populate other planets in our solar system and beyond.
the exact numbers and predictions are likely off by some amount, but the areas of labour and services that are bieng effected are correct, and are quite scary to contemplate. impacts to agriculture and building trades , trucking, could spill over, and see project set backs for everything, except, of course, the highest funded industrys. Hope you folks down there got some kind of, get down and dirty work your way out of trouble plan, you have been keeping secret, just might need it.
[flagged]
[flagged]
unskilled labor is key to the supply side for things like homes. i agree that the default path shouldn’t just be tolerating totally non-discretionary illegal immigration because we are unable to achieve the political will to create a more substantive guest worker program, but voters are largely not the sharpest knives and what can you do.
[flagged]
> No one said illegal immigration
Yeah, that's called marketing and spin: "illegal immigrant" somehow becomes "undocumented newcomer" in order to deflect from reality.
> How does an influx of unvetted, unskilled newborns somehow power the global economy?
Well at least in theory, these newborns are directly funded by one or more productive, lawful members of society who are directly invested in their upbringing and outcome, rather than publicly-furnished social safety nets.
The sad truth is that the vast majority of taxpaying citizens will never be able to fund their share of the public services they are provided - we don't need to import more of these people when we cannot take care of our own.
> HN accounts should come with free clown makeup.
Hit a nerve, did I? I'm thrilled with what $30B is going to buy in this department.
[dead]
The point about housing is quite clearly false. There are around 147 million residential housing units in the US. And there are around 1.4 million built each year (this number fluctuates a lot: it was a third of this during the mortgage crisis, for example). But even if new residential construction is cut in half - that's a change of 0.5%.
It's all right to have an opinion, but it's important to realize when it's based on data and when on emotion.
The U.S. has underbuilt housing for some time [0], so it seems likely that cutting production in half would have a significant effect, even if it’s partly offset by lower demand in the form of lower immigration.
[0]: https://investors.zillowgroup.com/investors/news-and-events/...
I think you hit downvote before really considering my point. There is simply no way that a change of 0.5% is significant - no matter your politics. Fluctuations of this magnitude happen with or without Trump every few years.
The relevant comparison is to annual construction, not the total inventory. Looking at recent data, variations of 0.5 percent (~700,000) have happened, but they were due to large shocks like Covid or post-Covid inflation.
This argument feels analogous to saying “there’s no way a granola bar can affect your hunger, its calorie count is negligible compared to all the calories your body has stored.”
Does those numbers take into account things like hurricanes in Florida?
[dead]