[YokoZar]

> * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today

If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today. Which specific workers are winning in that scenario may vary tremendously, of course, but I don't think anyone is seriously claiming AI will make everyone less productive.

[keybored]

> If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today.

Workers being more productive does not necessarily translate to workers getting more leverage or a larger piece of the pie.

[z2]

The value of labor i.e. wages depend on labor demand (the marginal product of labor) and bargaining power, not output per worker. If AI is a substitute for many tasks, the marginal value of an additional worker, and what a company is willing to pay for their work can fall even if each remaining worker is more productive.

[YokoZar]

What you're forecasting is a scenario where total output has substantially increased but no one's hiring or able to start their own business. Instant massive recession is by no means a "sure bet" with technological improvements, especially those that make more kinds of work possible than before.

[z2]

I'm not forecasting that, and it's a virtual strawman in the face of my much narrower claim: that wages depend on marginal labor demand and bargaining power, not average output per worker. If AI substitutes for labor, the marginal value of adding another worker in many roles can fall. That can mean fewer hires or lower wages in some categories, not 'no hiring' or an instant massive recession. I have no idea what the addressable market or demand for our more productive economy is, but for the record I do hope it's high to support new businesses and a bigger pie in general!

[YokoZar]

Forgive me, I was responding to the original claim that "it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today".

[johnvanommen]

It will - and z2 explained why, in response to my post

[johnvanommen]

> What you're forecasting is a scenario where total output has substantially increased but no one's hiring or able to start their own business.

I said labor would have “lower value” after AI progresses further and further.

My statement reflects that increased productivity means that fewer people are required to generate the same amount of economic output.

You twisted my statement and said “nobody is hiring.”

Which isn’t what I said.

[jopsen]

> My statement reflects that increased productivity means that fewer people are required to generate the same amount of economic output.

People have been singing that since the industrial revolution started.

What makes you think it's different this time? Other times increased productivity yielded fewer people doing what a machine suddenly can do. But never fewer people employed or smaller overall economy.

You can argue that our populations are older than ever before. There aren't enough kids, and consumers are saturated with consumption opportunities.

That's maybe never happened before during the industrial revolution. But it's orthogonal to AI.

[johnvanommen]

That’s a perfect summary of what I was getting at, thank you

[_DeadFred_]

Tech Company: At long last, we have created Manna from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create Manna

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1