i ball on a budget. COSTCO VODKA STYLE. Its actually really good. and really cheap.
YO ISAIAH!! i didnt know you’re a OC CALI CARTEL!!! I havent gone to that neck of the woods in the while. You go to mansion or sutra?
Costco is great. Also, titos vodka is good and very reasonably priced. Not that I drink more than maybe one drink a month.
Yeah I have family in OC. Great area. I didn’t hit up mansion or sutra - are they good?
The words are just words. It is your perception that makes them depressing! Get woke bro 
I’m in Newport at least once a year.
let me sleep LOL
The Industrial Revolution produced the same societal anxiety back in the late 1800’s. As did other advances in automated productivity through the years. What happens (assuming we don’t experience a “Terminator”-style uprising against humanity) is that new jobs end up getting created, as others have mentioned.
I’ve seen some articles citing some figures along the lines of, today, some 70% of the jobs that currently comprise the jobs market simply didn’t exist in the early 1900’s. Think about how cool it would be to be a design engineer for a car company, a high-comp and prestigious job for many. Didn’t exist in 1917. And that’s only a hundred short years. Point being is, it’s easy to get scared about this stuff, but humans can adapt.
However, FT is right that the path to equilibrium is never smooth. Some people can get left behind in the process. One could argue that Brexit and the Trump election, while appealing to protectionist and racial tensions, was also an economic result of the blue-collar set in both Scranton and Birmingham making a statement about how technological expansion hasn’t improved their personal bottom line, for instance. One could only imagine a world where all of us finance bigwigs were up in arms if it impacted us as seriously.
The key thing, I think, for us to be able to not worry too much about it would be that we avoid a Vernor Vinge “singularity” event (Google it) and remain at least in control of the technology. It’s one thing to have the power of the world in the hands of a cabal of megalomaniacal tech gurus; it’s quite another if it’s in the hands of a nonhuman consciousness whose logical constructs rapidly outstrip humans’ ability to adapt to the changes.
+1
FT - you agree?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/us-social-mobility-might-be-even-worse-than-you-thought
If nothing else I think that this is an interesting piece of work. I think it directly refutes the idea that americans really value, of there being a great ability to move between the income brackets. I think the story, maybe not completely, involves both the automation of many jobs, new and meaningful jobs not being created at a pace equal to the displaced people and new people being born (and maybe to a much greater degree, I’m thinking about companies with a few million dollars in market cap per employee - not that thats necessarily a bad thing, it just shows that the big advancements in the economy are occuring for a small number of people, while GDP continues to grow at a fairly slow rate), and people being made underemployed, and also this lack of mobility which could very well increase. There are plenty of companies which seem to be taking on more contractors in order to avoid having to classify people as full time employees so they don’t have to pay for healthcare/other benefits, I’d be curious to see some data on this and projections of where it may go. My impression is that standards of living in the developed world will decrease towards the global mean, as technology contiues to become more diffused, though a small amount of technocrats will increase their portion of the overall wealth, and more people will be relegated to lower compensated jobs and that theyll have less of an ability to improve their situations in life.
This is interesting as well.
If you don’t think that Finance will be “impacted seriously” by automation then you’ll be due for a rude awakening down the line.
Uh, that’s not what I was saying there.
We agree for the most part. Mankind always finds a way in the long run to set a higher standard for all. I don’t believe anyone was arguing that unless you think an asteroid will be hitting Earth or aliens will make us their slaves. It’s the pain in the short to medium term caused by automation and to a greater extent the oversupply of world labor that was the issue.
when the “consumer or client facing automaton” revolution begins, i’m sure a large part of the population will be employed as testers/QA people. you can’t just launch robots that displace many people-facing people without knowing how people will interact with these robots and constantly improve them. testing/QA is something that not so smart people can do so it’s not like the only people who get robot related jobs are computer scientists and engineers.
plus, for us finance types, robots completely displacing us is hard to see given the instinct and non-linear thinking involved in predicting the future. further, i could see a handful of robots crashing the economy to benefit themselves and their masters if given the opportunity. the mistrust of robots will grow exponentially with time. this will limit their implementation.
I think I’ve heard a similar argument, that people would become more wary of genetic tampering and cloning and shit. But then some group in china or something does it, and it loses its stigma, and everyone else does it just to keep up or because its desirable, thus making the implementation happen even faster, and with greater acceptance. Then you have cloned pets. Or you have parents being offered to have their kids made with an alteration that prevents alzheimers or something for an extra thousand dollars or something. Or people come to be familiar with the test tube babies (in vitro fertilization), and see them as normal.
Just a thought.
^ Gattaca
the industrial revolution created technologies and products relating to the fulfillment of basic human needs and untold numbers of jobs needed to produce them…today’s technologies minimize the humans required to deliver them. Don’t see the parallel
the industrial revolution created technologies and products relating to the fulfillment of basic human needs and untold numbers of jobs needed to produce them…today’s technologies minimize the humans required to deliver them. Don’t see the parallel
The industrial revolution absolutely reduced human involvement to extract more output with less labor. There is a clear parallel. It doesn’t matter if the definition of “output” changes (i.e., more services and less physical goods). It’s still all about doing more with the same or less – the science of how to allocate scarce resources, in other words, economics. As long as humans have needs and wants, this will continue to be the name of the game.
Moreover, you are forgetting the fact that there will be entire sectors of the economy that don’t currently exist being formed in 10, 20 years…that would be the job creation you speak of. Will there be people that get dislocated and basically effed in the long and brutal road to a new equilibrium? Of course. But interim job loss doesn’t mean zero future job growth.
Humans have been fearing machines since the concept of them was widely understood. We’ve been doing just fine for the last few hundred years. And by the way, every one always says “but conditions are different now.” Big picture-wise, they rarely ever are.
I agree. But I don’t see anywhere in the above where you differentiate between tools that help achieve tasks, versus a general intelligence which itself can create new tools to do other tasks. You have to have a reason to believe a general intelligence is impossible. There can be a situation where a computer is better at coding than us, better at building robots than us, etc. These things require lots of development, but there isn’t a clear answer I’ve seen that suggests its anything other than a problem requiring time. The best I’ve seen is that computers and brains function extremely differently, so computers in their current form will never replicate the brain. But I haven’t found experts in that field yet to read and see how true that statement is. Seems true enough