Another day, another post about AI.
If you listen to Sam Altman about job layoffs in Big Tech (we'll restrict it to tech for simplicity), he'll tell you that however much AI increases the efficiency of each worker, Big Tech will just innovate that much more so their demand for labor is the same. This seems a little optimistic to me, but there might be a realistic alternative that has better outcomes across the board.
According to Altman's view of the world, what we should see in the coming years is that Tech companies will preform layoffs. Let's say AI doubles the efficiency of each worker, so each company lays off half their employees because they realize that they can accomplish the same goals with half the people. Then other companies, in an optimistic view, instead of laying off people just double the number of innovations they're working on and don't have to fire anyone. So then every other Tech company is pressured to innovate just as fast, so they hire back everyone they fired.
The fundamental question to ask here is what's the limiting agent in the tech sector? Is it the number of ideas to work on or how fast those ideas get realized? My estimate would be that companies are more constrained by ideas than anything else. Afterall, if Google had more ideas than money then they would just hire more people to fulfill their ideas. I think many big companies have more money than ideas, or, alternatively, more money than pressure to create ideas. That's a bad thing. If companies are capped by ideas rather than by productive output that's a reason for layoffs.
So what should the world do?
Well, basically, I think if tech workers are smart they'll unionize and they'll have a good argument if they do. The unions should argue that their workers get a 5 hour work day, get paid the same amount in that 5 hours as they would for 8 hours of work, and that none of them should be layed off.
That, of course, sounds absurd, but I think it's a legitimately possible future. Here's why:
1. The 8 hour work day was arbitrary to begin with, and actually companies will be paying their employees 8 hours worth of salary for 10 hours worth of productive output (5 hours times twice the efficiency). So it's still a great deal for companies.
2. The 2-3 hours at the end of the work day are when a lot of workers are burned out and less productive anyways, so it's really just a matter of trimming the fat.
3. If the rate of growth of these companies is really capped by innovation, than they'll want to hire more people anyways, because they'll want as many unique perspectives as possible. Plus, it's not like people stop thinking when they aren't explicitly working.
4. Workers might generate even more ideas because they're less burned out. Ideally it even leads to workers spending more time thinking about the big picture, which is probably a good thing, because even those micro-directional choices in how a goal gets accomplished are extremely important.