Investors might individually be going for their own bags, but they at some institutional level understand the political economy implications of AI. It's hard to cut labour costs. Even in America with your president taxing foreign income at half the domestic corporate income tax rate ("nativist" Trump lol). People don't like to be told they're too expensive relative to slum residents who subsist on a bowl of rice. But what if you have an "objective" impetus of AI, a "force of nature" spearheading the march of progress? Then everyone who stands against this IMMEDIATE URGENT SERIOUS necessity is a Luddite and a drag on your country. If not you, then China will somehow win and do bad things to you.So you fire the old timers under pretense of AI. You know it won't work, you know the results would be awful. So you announce an dishonest mea culpa - we need people back. But the economy is awful. Everyone expects to be out of work and impoverished come 2030. Your government is the most against social transfers since Coolidge. So you wait for 2 weeks and offer to re-hire - at a lower salary and with far fewer benefits. The processes whose outputs can't be reasonably evaluated and separated from market noise by investors? Send them to India. Of course AI ROI doesn't cover the cost of capital for 99% of the companies. It doesn't need to. But you can't tell people this narrative. Even the most schizo alt-right media ecosystem can't keep the threat of structural impoverishment at bay. So you sell a different narrative. AI will make individuals more efficient. But remember that employee productivity counts both the outputs and the inputs.
>>107264709Labor costs could have been cut 4 years ago when they hired one person for 200k instead of 4 people for 50k each.
>>107264972What you've said happens in precious few industries. Software development had it because of (usually) good economies of scale and willingness of investors to shower them with money. Companies will gladly respond to short term demand spikes with crazy wages if that will get the foot through the costumer's door. But the structural trend remains the same. 1945-1980 was an anomaly. Most people don't, can't or don't want to fit the entire model of the macro economy in their heads. It's eays to fall for some bullshit about le money printer, welfare queens, small/no government, ... Especially if you have some time-relevant special skills retards don't (compsci). No wonder Ledditors were all libertarians. It's hard to make yourself think in cold war concepts that are 3 degrees of separation removed from red stars and sickles (labour vs capital share of GDP, PPP, share of credit for productive investments vs for margin debt, returns on welfare, coopetition, coownership of capital,.....)idk im just a finance retard doing 80 hours getting progressively drunk and hating tech people and finance people
