Remix.run Logo
▲ jparishy an hour ago

I liked this article. I appreciate that it didn't try to say it is or isn't AI.

To me, the entertainment industry suffers from a lot of the same problems in most other industries that chase "efficiency", in terms of resources used and profit made. Economies and industries and labor are interdependent and more "alive" than balance sheets and bank accounts.

For the film industry, when you start moving things away from LA to "save money", it has knock on effects that happen over long periods of time. Multiple Quarterly Earnings Reports long, if you will. Local businesses that depend on the film industry close due to less work, so then there is less expertise available. Less expertise means it can command high prices. Suddenly it's too expensive to film in LA altogether. So the rest of the jobs leave too.

This pattern seems super common, not just in the film industry.

It is a narrative that interweaves with AI, too. AI is supposedly an efficiency boom. In the macroeconomy, who is the "efficiency" we are chasing for, who benefits? Who is getting the money that was "saved"? Regular people do not have more more money or time. The "efficiency" is for people who are already very rich, to get richer. Is that worth the price we're paying? I know my answer. The article gets close to it by mentioning the consolidation in Hollywood, but I do not see how we fix this without enforcing our antitrust laws. It is embarrassing what we let rich people do in the name of stock price go up.

▲derektank an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>Regular people do not have more more money or time

Of course they do. Median real weekly wages[1] have been rising for decades all while the average number of hours worked per worker have fallen[2].

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/les1252881600Q

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/avhwpeusa065nrug

▲darth_avocado an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Meanwhile household basics increased faster than wages. In other words people don’t have more money.

https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index

▲manlymuppet 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is research from a labor advocacy group, with the explicit aim of the organization to advocate for this sort of thing. This doesn't mean the research is is automatically invalid, but it is bias worth mentioning.

Looking at an article from the CATO institute, over the last 30 years wages have climbed 169 percent, while food prices 111 percent.

But an even better measure is PCE, or personal consumption index. Rather than CPI, or any other "household basics" measure, which subjectively categorize goods and then tracks those, PCE measures the total dollar amount spent by the entire U.S. consumer sector on goods and services. This is what is used by the FRED database referenced in the reply above.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-dire-pronouncements-abou...

▲vlovich123 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I feel like people complain about “food” but it’s a stand-in and that the cumulative increase in rent, transportation and food probably rose faster than wages. So Cato reply “but food hasn’t grown as fast as wages” is a myopic retort (admittedly one they acknowledge) that tries to fight the narrow factual argument ignoring the broader one where the emotional narrative probably remains true.

▲jparishy 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Hey thanks for posting this perspective w/ the link. Fun rabbit hole to go down stuck in a hotel tonight. I wonder if you think something explanatory is missing in _all_ of these different indices, in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" sense of economic anxiety on display today

▲chorsestudios 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They do have more money, less spending power.

▲derektank an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The term “real” means the values are adjusted for inflation

▲smallmancontrov 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

...which is notorious for using a dogshit basket and basket-update methodology to make the number look good.

▲Avicebron 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yup. The St. Louis Fed is a joke. Inflation of owners' equivalent rent alone blows the whole argument up..

▲rectang 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the average number of hours worked per worker have fallen

Hooray for just-in-time scheduling where workers have to be available full time but rarely get scheduled full time. It’s an innovation that has been great for capital and terrible for labor.

▲jparishy 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Upvote for bringing data, since I did not. That said, that quote was in reference to AI, so referred to the past 3-4 years. And of course, our money today is not worth as much as it was 20+ years ago. Also many important goods and services increased in price at a higher rate than inflation or wage increases. It might be interesting to look at such industries for a history of consolidation or PE-involvement.

▲derektank 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

For what it's worth, I thought the rest of your comment was a very accurate description of how labor and capital are reallocated within an industry. The question is simply whether it's a bad thing that Hollywood studios have decamped for Atlanta and Toronto. For the people working in LA that don't want to move, I'm sure the answer is yes. But on net, I think it's probably meant more and better work for more people in general.

▲jparishy 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

I really appreciate your perspective. Mine is definitely malleable on these topics; they're complicated and I'm not an economist.

re: regular people and their money, I will say, something about the bigger picture just feels off. I look at the graphs you linked to, and do not see it reflected in the people around me. I don't mean to be dismissive of the data, more that I feel like I am missing something, or it is, if that makes sense?

▲manlymuppet 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The data by the Fed linked above is inflation adjusted.

▲jparishy 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

I realized after, yeah, thanks for calling out though.

▲constant_flux 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't find either of these charts dispositive by themselves. The cost of healthcare, education, housing, transportation, and insurance have easily outpaced any growth in wages. Another facet of this debate is that cheaper goods aren't necessarily of equal or better quality.

> Of course they do.

That level of certainty is not justified.

▲scotty79 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

25% increase in half a century? We ahd like 3 technological revolutions since then and economy grew massively.

Compare that to how much wealth appreciated, like a price of gold or real estate.

Median real wages increased by the narrowest possible meaning of this word.

Trickle down economy is literally a trickle.

▲stonogo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Nicely sliced. Weekly wages for full time workers have been rising for decades while fewer workers work full time. I don't think this data backs your assertion.

▲derektank 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The number of full time workers as a percent of the total employees has gone from roughly 84% (rounding up) in 1979 to roughly 82% (rounding down) today. There was a spike in people working part time in the wake of the GFC, but we've returned to trend.

Also, I chose weekly wages because annual wages are complicated by time off, which was the other item in question.

▲manlymuppet an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Something like 80% of workers are full time.

▲segmondy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why? AI is taking jobs. getty images just filed bankruptcy, stackoverflow went from heavy use to almost no use. AI is taking jobs, tipping toeing around it isn't the best thing. It needs to be said, and then what next needs to be figured out because first we talk about 200k jobs, then we will next talk about 2 million and then 20million

▲ an hour ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲echelon 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I live in Atlanta ("y'allywood"), a formerly big LA film outsourcing location. They shot much of Marvel and Netflix stuff here pre-2023. The unit below me has been rented to Winona Ryder and Dave Bautista.

Beyond that, my hobby is film and I know tons of people in the industry. I've made indie films with them.

All the jobs have gone to Europe. It's simply cheaper to film there now. Amazon and Netflix built infrastructure and taught local crews how during the pandemic content wars.

Looking at my Gen Z wife, all the eyeballs have gone to TikTok.

There's the answer.

▲otterley 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That’s really good insight! The graph only includes US employment. To see global employment instead would be enlightening.

▲someguydave 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

yes and also movies have gotten worse (more poorly written)

▲blltprfmnk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Economists keep saying over and over that so far AI has had minimal impact on the economy. That may change in time, but we aren’t seeing massive losses as a result of AI, despite some C suites using that as an excuse to lay off after over hiring.

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/what-re...

▲rylando 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Breaking news, frog in pot says water isn’t too hot yet

▲shruggedatlas 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is my first time seeing this publication. It was insightful -- thank you for sharing.

▲esafak an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Change comes slowly, then all at once.

▲card_zero 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

So for instance like if AI becomes slowly less relevant, then is discarded all at once. Change will be surprising! That much is likely.

▲georgemcbay 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Economists keep saying over and over that so far AI has had minimal impact on the economy.

Economists (including but not limited to Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Arthur Levitt) also spent a decade arguing against Brooksley Born's 1998 warnings that unregulated over-the-counter derivatives would inevitably lead to a financial crisis.

Economists can be spectacularly wrong and short-sighted (and blinded by prior assumptions of how things work) until suddenly the thing that should have been obvious the whole time is no longer ignorable.

▲icantevenhold an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe a lot of people worked at stackoverflow idk; but I have been organising electronic “underground” music nights for 15+ years and basically stopped now because there just wasn’t a big enough audience anymore.

Anyway what I’m trying to say is that I think COVID and its aftermath is a much bigger factor here than AI, especially when it comes to “live / performing” art

▲BLKNSLVR an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Offshoring of manufacturing to China is the analogy that springs to mind for me.

▲j45 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Efficiency could mean creating more with the same labour, not creating the same amount with less labour.

▲jparishy 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes, it definitely can. That's sort of why I kept putting it in scarequotes. I am not skeptic of AI, fwiw. Mostly just our current crop of corpo/gov leadership and their views on what healthy economy looks like.