Mr. Stern is precisely the wrong person to listen to on this issue. A union organizer's goal is to maximize hours worked by humans. AI gives us the option (for the first time) to minimize those hours without reducing our standard of living.
In 1930, the progressive economist John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay called Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren. The most high profile claim was a 15-hour work week. He was wrong about that -- weekly hours have declined but not by nearly that much. But many of his other predictions have come true. (Read it yourself; it's easy to find online.) His larger point was that he foresaw a time when the vast majority of human needs could be met without human labor. And unlike Mr. Stern, he believed that would represent a great boon for humanity. I think he was right, and we're very close to attaining that vision.
A world in which human labor is mostly unnecessary is a world Andy Stern can't conceive of, and so he fears it. Yes, it would cause all kinds of problems, both economic and spiritual (what is man's purpose if not to work?) But those problems are solvable, and isn't that a better world?
Let's take the counter argument: we should curtail AI so we can continue to slave 1/3rd of our life away doing jobs most of us don't even like so we can buy stuff made by other people who are spending 1/3rd (or more) of their life doing jobs they don't like? Really? Who wants to sign up for that when there's another option? Instead of trying to limit AI, Mr. Stern's efforts would be better spent trying to ensure the bounty of AI is distributed fairly and broadly instead of only enriching a tiny few. That is the challenge of the 21st century.
It’s hard to argue with the assertion that reducing the time spent working and thereby increasing the time available for leisure pursuits is a fundamentally desirable goal.
The potential problem is that this will be achieved by some highly skilled workers continuing to work
relatively long hours collaborating with AI, while others become unemployed. A conservative economic observation is that unemployment will be particularly exacerbated as minimum wage mandates are increased.
General principles that I endorse to address this are expanded educational opportunities in manual skills, including ones like equipment maintenance that can be assisted but not replaced by AI, and a reliance on the earned income tax credit rather than minimum wage mandates to reduce inequality .
You're correct. Ensuring fair distribution of the bounty of AI will be one of the largest challenges. Conservative quasi-libertarians in particular will have a particularly large political adjustment to make. But I believe it's worth making.
As an anecdote, once upon a time, I was a manager at a Fortune 500 company who ran a company wide initiative called ‘employee empowerment’, marketed as a drive to improve company culture. Each department was tasked with soliciting and implementing ideas from employees, bottom up. After weeks of meetings and anonymous voting, the employees of my department came up with a single improvement idea: eliminating production deadlines! Needless to say, the whole initiative was a waste of time and caused more cynicism in the culture. It is astonishing to me that American Compass would behave like my old employer did - wasting time and inciting cynicism in the culture that it is supposed to save from the democrats. What a fuss
"More pay and less work" is a popular policy right up until the business fails, then it becomes the fault of greedy execs. Business competition constrains CEO behavior, CEO constrains team. If either is removed the system breaks
The consumers will decide how AI is used. The companies that pay attention and use artificial intelligence wisely will gain market share and those that just try and cut their costs will go bankrupt. What does this mean for employees? Similar result, the companies that us AI wisely will be more able to hire and retain their good employees, the companies that try to use AI to screw over their workers will get stuck with lousy employees and/or hostile unions.
Lather rinse and repeat. Walmart had to cry uncle and raise wages a few years ago. Turns out it's hard to sell stuff if you can't keep enough employees around to stock the shelves.
There will be plenty of things about AI that needs to be regulated. Including the way it can be used to produce very authentic imitations of otherwise famous people. The way it can be used to commit fraud and crime on a fairly massive scale. So let's not go around inventing AI ghosts ruining employment to chase.
Mr. Stern is precisely the wrong person to listen to on this issue. A union organizer's goal is to maximize hours worked by humans. AI gives us the option (for the first time) to minimize those hours without reducing our standard of living.
In 1930, the progressive economist John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay called Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren. The most high profile claim was a 15-hour work week. He was wrong about that -- weekly hours have declined but not by nearly that much. But many of his other predictions have come true. (Read it yourself; it's easy to find online.) His larger point was that he foresaw a time when the vast majority of human needs could be met without human labor. And unlike Mr. Stern, he believed that would represent a great boon for humanity. I think he was right, and we're very close to attaining that vision.
A world in which human labor is mostly unnecessary is a world Andy Stern can't conceive of, and so he fears it. Yes, it would cause all kinds of problems, both economic and spiritual (what is man's purpose if not to work?) But those problems are solvable, and isn't that a better world?
Let's take the counter argument: we should curtail AI so we can continue to slave 1/3rd of our life away doing jobs most of us don't even like so we can buy stuff made by other people who are spending 1/3rd (or more) of their life doing jobs they don't like? Really? Who wants to sign up for that when there's another option? Instead of trying to limit AI, Mr. Stern's efforts would be better spent trying to ensure the bounty of AI is distributed fairly and broadly instead of only enriching a tiny few. That is the challenge of the 21st century.
It’s hard to argue with the assertion that reducing the time spent working and thereby increasing the time available for leisure pursuits is a fundamentally desirable goal.
The potential problem is that this will be achieved by some highly skilled workers continuing to work
relatively long hours collaborating with AI, while others become unemployed. A conservative economic observation is that unemployment will be particularly exacerbated as minimum wage mandates are increased.
General principles that I endorse to address this are expanded educational opportunities in manual skills, including ones like equipment maintenance that can be assisted but not replaced by AI, and a reliance on the earned income tax credit rather than minimum wage mandates to reduce inequality .
You're correct. Ensuring fair distribution of the bounty of AI will be one of the largest challenges. Conservative quasi-libertarians in particular will have a particularly large political adjustment to make. But I believe it's worth making.
Asking a union rep whether you need more collective bargaining is like asking your barber if you need a haircut.
This approach did not work out well for US Automobile employment. So we should probably not do the same to Google and Amazon
As an anecdote, once upon a time, I was a manager at a Fortune 500 company who ran a company wide initiative called ‘employee empowerment’, marketed as a drive to improve company culture. Each department was tasked with soliciting and implementing ideas from employees, bottom up. After weeks of meetings and anonymous voting, the employees of my department came up with a single improvement idea: eliminating production deadlines! Needless to say, the whole initiative was a waste of time and caused more cynicism in the culture. It is astonishing to me that American Compass would behave like my old employer did - wasting time and inciting cynicism in the culture that it is supposed to save from the democrats. What a fuss
"More pay and less work" is a popular policy right up until the business fails, then it becomes the fault of greedy execs. Business competition constrains CEO behavior, CEO constrains team. If either is removed the system breaks
The consumers will decide how AI is used. The companies that pay attention and use artificial intelligence wisely will gain market share and those that just try and cut their costs will go bankrupt. What does this mean for employees? Similar result, the companies that us AI wisely will be more able to hire and retain their good employees, the companies that try to use AI to screw over their workers will get stuck with lousy employees and/or hostile unions.
Lather rinse and repeat. Walmart had to cry uncle and raise wages a few years ago. Turns out it's hard to sell stuff if you can't keep enough employees around to stock the shelves.
There will be plenty of things about AI that needs to be regulated. Including the way it can be used to produce very authentic imitations of otherwise famous people. The way it can be used to commit fraud and crime on a fairly massive scale. So let's not go around inventing AI ghosts ruining employment to chase.
Great post - thank you so much!