If we end up in a world with mass unemployment (like 90%), I expect those people currently self-identifying as conservatives to support strong redistribution of income, along with almost all others. I expect strong redistribution to happen in countries where democracy with income-independent voting rights is still alive by then, if any. In those where it’s not, maybe it won’t happen and people might die of starvation, be driven out of their homes, etc.
If we end up in a world with mass unemployment (like 90%), to be really blunt, I don’t expect the opinions of the unemployed to count for shit. What are they going to do? Strike with the jobs they don’t have, or violently riot against the newly minted drone armies of unyielding loyalty?
Do you believe mass unemployment will jump from ~0-10% in developed countries to 90% overnight? If not, the political question of whether to respond to unemployment increases by either redistribution or protectionism (of any kind – it likely won’t be immediately clear that AI and not other political grievances will be responsible) will be particularly salient in the short term.
Sorry, typo. I didn’t meant to make a connection between those two, it’s just that many developing countries have higher unemployment rates for reasons that are not really relevant to what we’re talking about here.
“Protectionism against AI” is a bit of an indirect way to point at not using AI for some tasks for job market reasons, but thanks for clarifying. Reducing immigration or trade won’t solve AI-induced job loss, right? I do agree that countries could decide to either not use AI, or redistribute AI-generated income, with the caveat that those choosing not to use AI may be outcompeted by those who do. I guess we could, theoretically, sign treaties to not use AI for some jobs anywhere.
I think AI-generated income redistribution is more likely though, since it seems the obviously better solution.
My point was that in the first stages of AI-induced job loss, it might not be clear to everyone (either due to genuine epistemic uncertainty or due to partisan bias) whether the job loss was induced by AI or their own previous preferred political grievance. This was just an aside and not important to my broader point though.
If we end up in a world with mass unemployment (like 90%), I expect those people currently self-identifying as conservatives to support strong redistribution of income, along with almost all others. I expect strong redistribution to happen in countries where democracy with income-independent voting rights is still alive by then, if any. In those where it’s not, maybe it won’t happen and people might die of starvation, be driven out of their homes, etc.
If we end up in a world with mass unemployment (like 90%), to be really blunt, I don’t expect the opinions of the unemployed to count for shit. What are they going to do? Strike with the jobs they don’t have, or violently riot against the newly minted drone armies of unyielding loyalty?
Do you believe mass unemployment will jump from ~0-10% in developed countries to 90% overnight? If not, the political question of whether to respond to unemployment increases by either redistribution or protectionism (of any kind – it likely won’t be immediately clear that AI and not other political grievances will be responsible) will be particularly salient in the short term.
I don’t really understand your thoughts about developing vs developed countries and protectionism, could you make them more explicit?
Sorry, typo. I didn’t meant to make a connection between those two, it’s just that many developing countries have higher unemployment rates for reasons that are not really relevant to what we’re talking about here.
Thanks for correcting it. I still don’t really get your connection between protectionism and mass unemployment. Perhaps you could make it explicit?
? Protectionism (whether against AI, or immigration, or trade) is often justified by concerns about job loss.
“Protectionism against AI” is a bit of an indirect way to point at not using AI for some tasks for job market reasons, but thanks for clarifying. Reducing immigration or trade won’t solve AI-induced job loss, right? I do agree that countries could decide to either not use AI, or redistribute AI-generated income, with the caveat that those choosing not to use AI may be outcompeted by those who do. I guess we could, theoretically, sign treaties to not use AI for some jobs anywhere.
I think AI-generated income redistribution is more likely though, since it seems the obviously better solution.
My point was that in the first stages of AI-induced job loss, it might not be clear to everyone (either due to genuine epistemic uncertainty or due to partisan bias) whether the job loss was induced by AI or their own previous preferred political grievance. This was just an aside and not important to my broader point though.