> Research suggests that in some parts of the United States, factory closures contribute to a rise in deaths from opioid overdoses.

It’s so cute some people think that the extent of mass displacement will be limited to what happens to the unemployed. Oh poor unemployed! Nope, pitchforks will be grabbed. It won’t be rosy. Maybe they dream about having killer robots to defend themselves, but imagine a few hundred million people getting angry within one election cycle.

▲

fasterik 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I can imagine "a few hundred million people getting angry within one election cycle" but the question is, what's the probability of that happening? I would say given current evidence, close to zero. Modest productivity gains from AI are expected, but the current projection in reduced hiring is less than 1%.

>More than 90 percent of executives report no effect of AI use on employment over the past three years, and 89 percent report no impact on labor productivity. Among the minority that do report effects, the results tilt slightly positive for productivity, with an estimated average boost of 0.29 percent. However, executives anticipate much larger effects going forward. They forecast that over the next three years, AI will increase labor productivity by 1.4 percent on average while reducing employment by 0.7 percent, implying a net output gain of roughly 0.8 percent. About two-thirds of the anticipated workforce reduction is expected to come from reduced hiring.

https://www.nber.org/digest/202605/global-evidence-business-...

▲

rglover 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Everyone has a plan til' they get punched in the face." - Mike Tyson

Sadly, I agree, that's where this is all headed.

▲

stickfigure 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> imagine a few hundred million people getting angry within one election cycle

This isn't hard to imagine? We'll elect someone, they will put in place new policies. Maybe they will help, maybe they won't.

Nice thing about real democracies, you don't actually need pitchforks.

▲

loup-vaillant an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Said democracy does have to be real, though. If we're talking about that country between two oceans that waged armed conflicts almost constantly since its very inception, has supported or helped put in place straight-up dictatorships not that long ago, and sports one of the highest wealth inequality in the West, well... I'd think long and hard before I call that a real democracy.

	▲	nielsbot 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Also: The US government is structured to put checks on democracy thereby ensuring wealth and power inequality. See: The Electoral College, The Senate, and even the Constitution itself among other examples.

▲

geraneum an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, nobody likes the pitchforks but “maybe they won’t” is not really an option for hungry people.

> Nice thing about real democracies, you don't actually need pitchforks.

Democracy is not something inherent in any society. It’s a tool wielded by the people.

▲

toofy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

this is only true if people know their voices matter.

if their voices are overrun by the powerful, the pitchforks come back out.

	▲	bonobo 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We have also to consider what if their voices not only don't matter but are actively being suppressed. It's hard to start a revolution if who's in control can control communications and can preemptively identify people who are more likely to start dissent. Maybe this time we won't even have the slightest chance to revolt.

▲

whatever1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

China’s surveillance state seems very successful at managing population emotions.

▲

phainopepla2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

China has both carrot and stick. Living standards there have improved dramatically over the past few decades. Over here they use a smaller stick, but no carrot at all.

	▲	taurath 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The size of the stick here is in direct proportion to your proximity to power.

▲

linkregister an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The social credit system is regional, disjoint, and composed of a handful of various trackers. It can hardly be compared with public opinion.

Xinjiang is an exception; it is heavily publicly surveilled.

Internet censorship is strong. The public still has sway over government policy. When search terms are blocked, the public continues with euphemisms. The government is responsive to public opinion. The government does promote influencers with opinions favorable with CCP goals.

Chinese foreign policy is more dovish than public opinion, especially regarding Taiwan.

	▲	whatever1 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		`Chinese foreign policy is more dovish than public opinion, especially regarding Taiwan.` Dovish as in it will be annexed in the next decade and not next week?

▲

geraneum an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

False equivalence. Maybe that’s what they fool themselves with. Salivating, looking at China, not understanding the massive upward social mobility in recent time there. Why stop at China, look at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

▲

colordrops 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well they also at least give something back with infrastructure and general management of the country. None of that is happening in the US.

	▲	linkregister an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's undeniable that Chinese transportation infrastructure is amazing, especially high-speed rail. Compared with the United States, public health care is less available in China. Retirement pensions are an order of magnitude lower (even with PPP adjustment), hence their world-leading savings rate. Social mobility is lower: getting a permit to access social services such as schools in a new city is difficult. Youth unemployment was above 25% the last time it was published; it is no longer disclosed. Rule of law is much less strong. Injustices committed by government officials towards citizens are unlikely to be addressed. Housing costs to income ratios are an order of magnitude worse in cities with job opportunities. The Chinese government has chosen to allocate capital toward industrial output at the expense of its citizens' welfare. It has succeeded at its goal. Perhaps in the future more capital allocation will be made to consumption. That is not the case at the current time.

▲

jampekka an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Murdoch et al aren't that bad either.

▲

inglor_cz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

During the economic transformation in the former Soviet Bloc, entire industries disappeared, and pitchforks weren't grabbed. I saw it myself, growing up in a heavy industry city that quickly turned into a rust belt city.

IDK why so many people romanticize pauper riots and try to wish them into existence. In practice, as long as people don't outright starve, they don't become violent just over losing their jobs.

All the post-1989 wars east of the former Iron Curtain were triggered by nationalism. Not a single one by a class conflict.

▲

geraneum an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s so ironic to use Soviet Union as anecdote here considering what led to its birth.

	▲	inglor_cz 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Massive military defeat in WWI which destabilized Russia. If the Whites were better organized, the result could easily have been a very bigoted nationalist dictatorship instead.

▲

vonneumannstan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think he's literally conceding your point by writing this essay. That there will be massive upheaval and yes maybe pitchforks if we don't get ahead of the problems.

	▲	paulpauper an hour ago \| parent [-]
		nothing will happen. the '20s and '30s were much worse compared to today and nothing happened. Americans are much more complacent now than even then. People aspire to get rich, like on TikTok and "hustle culture," not to hang the rich.