Well…AI pushes from management are absolutely not just a boomer phenomena. The whole premise of AI buzz in management is “let’s hire less workers”.
I’d say it’s more of the offshoring to “cheaper” labor markets but except only the AI giants writing agents get paid, not actual people.
Instead of lifting people out of poverty or providing humane assistive technology, every AI ceo out there has their eyes on selling their products so their clients can lay off people.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jul 04:03
collapse
and that’s good for who? who are “they” to begin with?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
on 06 Jul 18:07
nextcollapse
massive_bereavement@fedia.io
on 06 Jul 22:14
collapse
?
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 19:01
nextcollapse
The solution is to eliminate the jobs
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
on 06 Jul 19:07
nextcollapse
The article is well-written. I wonder how many employees will still be needed in 10+ years from now.
In case you haven’t heard about it, the labor market is regulated by supply and demand. That means, if there’s less demand, but supply stays equal, wages decline. That’s what people experience for the last decades. If this trend continues, demand for human labor might become very weak. That’s why people for one can no longer rely only on the incomes through the labor (wages), but need good safety nets (Universal Basic Income, UBI).
And also, demand for labor is another way of saying “how much are humans needed to perform tasks”. What if humans aren’t needed? Will people be ok with that?
First, the last few decades it wasn’t the demand that was going down but the supply was going up with each generation joining the work force being larger than the one leaving into retirement, and also more women joining the work force.
These effects have ended. There aren’t more women to join the workforce and the baby boomers, the largest generation that ever existed going into retirement.
Also, you are forgetting what governs the demand for workers. It’s not some mystical fixed amount of work that needs to be done. A main feature of capitalism is that consummation is only governed by the available money, and it’s practically limitless apart from that. If people have infinite money, they will just buy 10 cars. Not because they need them, but because they can.
That means if there’s enough money around, there’s virtually infinite work to do and thus infinite demand for labour. The demand is only bound by the amount of money people are able to spend.
This leads to the current crisis. It’s not a crisis of too little demand for workers, but one of a bad economy. If the economy picks up, companies will start to hire again.
I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn’t giving people what they really want either.
There’s also the value of money has never been lower either. Working for less isn’t rewarding. And so demand is getting intensely squeezed, and this is likely to continue with a planet that is full of enough stuff
I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn’t giving people what they really want either.
Tbh, I don’t think that’s the case. If you look at any of the relevant metrics (CO², energy consumption, plastic waste, …) they only know one direction globally and that’s up.
I think the actual issues are
Russian invasion of Ukraine and associated sanctions on one of the main energy providers of Europe
Trump’s “trade wars” which make global supply lines unreliable and costs incalculable (global supply chains love nothing more than uncertainty)
Uncertainty in regards to China/Taiwan
Boomers retiring in western countries, which for the first time since pretty much ever means that the work force is shrinking instead of growing. Economical growth was mostly driven by population growth for the last half century with per-capita productivity staying very close to inflation.
Disrupting changes in key industries like cars and energy. The west has been sleeping on may of these developments (e.g. electric cars, batteries, solar) and now China is curbstomping the rest of the world in regards to market share.
High key interest rates (which are applied to reduce high inflation due to some of the reason above) reduce demand on financial investments into companies. The low interest rates of the 2010s and also before lead to more investments into companies. With interest going back up, investments dry up.
All these changes mean that companies, countries and people in the west have much less free cash available.
There’s also the value of money has never been lower either.
That’s been the case since every. Inflation has always been a thing and with that the value of money is monotonically decreasing. But that doesn’t really matter for the whole argument, since the absolute value of money doesn’t matter, only the relative value.
To put it differently: If you earn €100 and the thing you want to buy costs €10, that is equivalent to if you earn €1000 and the thing you want to buy costing €100. The value of money dropping is only relevant for savings, and if people are saving too much then the economy slows down and jobs are cut, thus some inflation is positive or even required.
What is an actual issue is that wages are not increasing at the same rate as the cost of things, but that’s not a “value of the money” issue.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 07 Jul 04:23
collapse
it was failing before, it was declining slowly , faster in conservative areas than in blue areas. the moment they started giving participation grades in HS, it was a huge red flag, and this was in the 2000s. so our hs in the west had to promote a handful of students who either top 4.0+ earners or gifted “paraded” around the school look how good our school is, while every other student is struggling, or
threaded - newest
They’re about to turn AI into a scapegoat for why kids are stupid and blame everything on it, as if before AI our education system was perfect.
You don’t need to pretend education was perfect before in order to realise that it’s getting worse and try to reverse the trend.
You also don’t need to pretend it was perfect before in order to see that the proliferation of LLM’s is harming education.
“Kids are dumb cuz AI” is literally the new “kids are dumb cuz phones”
It’s generational propaganda meant to divide us.
Well…AI pushes from management are absolutely not just a boomer phenomena. The whole premise of AI buzz in management is “let’s hire less workers”.
I’d say it’s more of the offshoring to “cheaper” labor markets but except only the AI giants writing agents get paid, not actual people.
Instead of lifting people out of poverty or providing humane assistive technology, every AI ceo out there has their eyes on selling their products so their clients can lay off people.
and that’s good for who? who are “they” to begin with?
What future job market?
What future?
What?
🗿
?
The solution is to eliminate the jobs
The article is well-written. I wonder how many employees will still be needed in 10+ years from now.
In case you haven’t heard about it, the labor market is regulated by supply and demand. That means, if there’s less demand, but supply stays equal, wages decline. That’s what people experience for the last decades. If this trend continues, demand for human labor might become very weak. That’s why people for one can no longer rely only on the incomes through the labor (wages), but need good safety nets (Universal Basic Income, UBI).
And also, demand for labor is another way of saying “how much are humans needed to perform tasks”. What if humans aren’t needed? Will people be ok with that?
You got a few things the wrong way round.
First, the last few decades it wasn’t the demand that was going down but the supply was going up with each generation joining the work force being larger than the one leaving into retirement, and also more women joining the work force.
These effects have ended. There aren’t more women to join the workforce and the baby boomers, the largest generation that ever existed going into retirement.
Also, you are forgetting what governs the demand for workers. It’s not some mystical fixed amount of work that needs to be done. A main feature of capitalism is that consummation is only governed by the available money, and it’s practically limitless apart from that. If people have infinite money, they will just buy 10 cars. Not because they need them, but because they can.
That means if there’s enough money around, there’s virtually infinite work to do and thus infinite demand for labour. The demand is only bound by the amount of money people are able to spend.
This leads to the current crisis. It’s not a crisis of too little demand for workers, but one of a bad economy. If the economy picks up, companies will start to hire again.
I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn’t giving people what they really want either.
There’s also the value of money has never been lower either. Working for less isn’t rewarding. And so demand is getting intensely squeezed, and this is likely to continue with a planet that is full of enough stuff
Tbh, I don’t think that’s the case. If you look at any of the relevant metrics (CO², energy consumption, plastic waste, …) they only know one direction globally and that’s up.
I think the actual issues are
All these changes mean that companies, countries and people in the west have much less free cash available.
That’s been the case since every. Inflation has always been a thing and with that the value of money is monotonically decreasing. But that doesn’t really matter for the whole argument, since the absolute value of money doesn’t matter, only the relative value.
To put it differently: If you earn €100 and the thing you want to buy costs €10, that is equivalent to if you earn €1000 and the thing you want to buy costing €100. The value of money dropping is only relevant for savings, and if people are saving too much then the economy slows down and jobs are cut, thus some inflation is positive or even required.
What is an actual issue is that wages are not increasing at the same rate as the cost of things, but that’s not a “value of the money” issue.
All going according to plan.
it was failing before, it was declining slowly , faster in conservative areas than in blue areas. the moment they started giving participation grades in HS, it was a huge red flag, and this was in the 2000s. so our hs in the west had to promote a handful of students who either top 4.0+ earners or gifted “paraded” around the school look how good our school is, while every other student is struggling, or