patrick.net

tovarichpeter says

That does indeed leave inequality as a possible problem. I tend not to worry very much about inequality as I don’t think that it’s much of a problem. And further I think that this strange blend of markets and capitalism that we have generally works to undermine whatever tendencies to increased inequality arise. And this is most especially so in this new digital world: Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page have all become among the handful of the world’s richest people by giving us stuff for free. Sure, if you measure inequality just by money then inequality has increased: if you measure it by consumption possibilities, as above the only important thing, it’s very difficult indeed to say that it has.

Incredibly stupid article.
Yeah "consumption possibilities" for people living pay checks to pay checks have increased. They get FB for free, you know.

Forbes article says

And further I think that this strange blend of markets and capitalism that we have generally works to undermine whatever tendencies to increased inequality arise.

Which is simply not true. The metrics say the exact opposite. Also nowhere in the article does the author attempt to refute Hawking's statement other than giving his asserted opinion without evidence in favor.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah "consumption possibilities" for people living pay checks to pay checks have increased. They get FB for free, you know.

Right on. Google and Facebook aren't allowing people to reduce rents to 10% of income expenditure or making doctor visits cost a dollar or lowering the cost of tuition to $500/semester or less. Honestly, the last item is the most absurd. Tuition for higher ed, barring specialty courses involving labs like higher end Chem or Bio courses (you can certainly dissect a frog or conduct acid-base reactions in your own home) ought to be rock bottom.

Robots are just means of production.

Here's another thing automation hasn't helped: Financial Markets.

The promise of computers would be they would make the 'toll gates' most efficient by choosing them better and faster than a human could. In reality, we have the most volatile markets since the post-war era with lots of front-running and HFT Algo bots ginning up prices.

This was already posted and discussed.

http://patrick.net/?p=1285757&c=1233925#comment-1233925

The author says:

Stephen Hawking has done a Reddit AMA and much of it is both interesting and about AI which isn’t what I’m about here. However, Hawking strays over into the economic effects of AI, of the robots coming to take all our jobs, and sadly gets the answer entirely wrong. Thus proving Richard Feynman correct, that even great scientists working outside their own specialty can be just as dumb as the next guy.

I read part of that AMA, and what Hawking says is along the lines of this. So far we have seen declines in real incomes as technology has improved production,making only the investing class richer.

This is a simple fact. And what Richard Feynman says about scientists sometimes being stupid is irrelevant. Hawking is hopeful, but just observing the very obvious current trend.

Some will argue that since our technology is so awesome, and since couples now always both work, we still have a lot of current adults that have lifestyles better than their parents. Okay. Maybe on average just barely. But that's with two incomes instead of one. The truth is that there is already an observable trend of increased production and wealth due to automation and technology going mostly to the rich.

Why will robots be any different ? Some robots will be used to make corporations more profitable. Some may be consumer items to make our lives better. But these will just be more toys that we feel we need to buy. If too many jobs are lost, then perhaps we get a guaranteed income, allowing us to consume. But that will be just a variation on what welfare, food stamps and tax credits now do for people with incomes too low (or zero) to live on.

If the author disagrees, he should spend a little less time talking about Feynman and how Hawking is wrong, and a little more time explaining why the obvious trends in place are going to change.

I read the rest. What an idiot. Really Forbes ?