“New figures reveal that total payroll growth was revised downward by approximately 403,000 jobs. Crucially, this downward revision occurred while real GDP remained robust, including a 3.7 per cent growth rate in the fourth quarter. This decoupling — maintaining high output with significantly lower labour input — is the hallmark of productivity growth…………and I identified a cooling in entry-level hiring within AI-exposed sectors, where recruitment for junior roles………But there is cause for further optimism…….”
Optimism? It’s worth bearing in mind that, as AI companies suck up hundreds of billions in cash and get their electricity costs subsidized, for them to succeed, humans with jobs must fail. They’ll argue that’s zero-sum thinking, and AI will create more jobs than it destroys, but how many people really believe them?
IIRC GDP also grew before the last two big market crashes. Bubbles exist. The thing about a cooling in specific sectors is interesting, though.
They’ll argue that’s zero-sum thinking, and AI will create more jobs than it destroys, but how many people really believe them?
It has worked before. Who’s still unhappy about the mechanical loom?
How many average workers ended up unemployed and in crippling poverty while the capital owners benefited from the mechanical loom? How much retraining and help into new industries occurred, as opposed to worker exploitation and increases in shareholder profit?
GDP growing while payroll shrinks is a very clear marker that ever fewer employees are being more and more exploited for corporate gain.
So what are you arguing? We should have stayed in the early 1700’s, technologically? I’m going to go ahead and say that the progress that happened has made the world better now. Somehow, unemployment is still in the single percents most of the time, too.
(Plus, you’re naming social systems that hadn’t developed yet in the days of the Luddites)
I am pointing put a lot of people ended up worse off while capital hoarders benefitted from new technology, and it will happen again if we don’t take it into account. The parasitic class has worked hard to dismantle the support systems of the workers they leech from and there is little to no forward planning on behalf of the same workers who will be displaced again. The economy is going to tank like it did then, allowing the parasites to amass a greater hoard and any benefits that trickle down to the regular citizens will have the same stale urine smell it always does.
Less pointing out, more assuming a conclusion and working backwards. You can do that, but only if your conclusion stands on it’s own.
There were no support support systems to dismantle; they were all invented over the course of the next century, and built up over the 20th. The economy of 18th century Europe did not tank, but grew explosively into the 19th.
Since the average income for poor families dropped from 40 shillings a week to between 7 and 10 shillings a week, I would hardly say I am assuming a conclusion. And I was saying we now have to make sure social support systems are in place to prevent those huge increases in poverty in the short to medium term.
The economy certainly tanked for poor people, which might help explain the riots in 1826. Granted, the FSA have been working for years to dismantle, denigrate, and stigmatize their social support systems, but just because American corporate capitalist driven economic propaganda leads to those behaviours doesn’t mean other countries who actually care about building a cooperative citizenry can’t focus on preventing what can be predicted.
Sounds like you have a source. That’s great, care to share?
It’s not going to be uniform across Europe, and it’s going to go up and down as politics and warfare happens. The combined effect of all that colonial wealth coming in is indisputable, though. (The Luddites specifically were an English faction, but the phenomenon was not)
There were straight-up revolutions in 1848, if you’re looking for an example of the underclass being unhappy. And the French revolution right in this same era. The funny thing about that, is that unrest usually happens when conditions ease up a bit, and people have the luxury of politicking rather than just trying not to starve. Look at the student protests that have happened recently in growing countries like Bangladesh, but not in Niger or Malawi.
And I was saying we now have to make sure social support systems are in place to prevent those huge increases in poverty in the short to medium term.
No disagreement there. Poverty is bad.
Or…. A bubble?
From experience, ai has been at best a meager improvement for things I do, and usually a miserable mess.
wait. is this a boring dystopia?
At best AI is destroying jobs and only creating wealth for the ultra rich. The truth is it is not destroying jobs (yet?) and dispite that we are just playing where’s the queen(3 card monte) with the economy and will lose everything to some con artists
