Economists Tyler Cowen and Alex Imas highlighted the discussion.
Many users praised analyses comparing AI labor effects to the China Shock, appreciating the nuance that shows less disruption and counters panic.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
@nominalthoughts @ngoldschlag Part of the issue, I think, is that the China Shock was surprising to many economists. Our read of the general consensus is that US wages and labor markets were flexible. Here is Krugman writing in 1995:
@swinshi @nominalthoughts @ngoldschlag Whoops yes
@nominalthoughts @ngoldschlag But the reality is we now know a lot about WHY the China Shock was disruptive to local labor markets. It may not have been anticipated ex ante, but it is not a mystery ex post. And the all the reasons WHY should make us less concerned about the China Shock.
@ModeledBehavior @nominalthoughts @ngoldschlag Great paper! Should the last “China Shock” in this tweet be “AI Shock”?
@nominalthoughts @ngoldschlag But we did get lots of joblessness. Yes there were gains elsewhere, but some people and places saw disemployment and fairly serious spillovers. I think this causes some to fear AI because "we were surprised last time, maybe we will be again".
@ModeledBehavior @CardiffGarcia Again if you would consult the chart
@ModeledBehavior @CardiffGarcia Great line
@ModeledBehavior @nominalthoughts @ngoldschlag Exactly. The nuance gets lost in the panic. Same thing with warehouse automation. I've watched depalletizing robots roll out for years. Reality is always messier.
@ModeledBehavior @CardiffGarcia More appropriate graph but