Rattengift's Shortform

Rattengift

This is a special post for quick takes by Rattengift. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

Writing this just for my own future reference to be able to figure out how calibrated I was in retrospect:

38%* unemployment in 2029 is unhinged, and there's no realistic path to hitting that target in the next two and a third years, even if models get good enough to automate all work within that time period (which I also think seems unlikely).

This will likely backfire in the same way 2027 did, PR-wise, because they do not make it clear enough that this is not, whatsoever, a median prediction. It will likely be taken by the wider public as, "Look at these AI researchers convinced of their doomsday cult's wisdom trying to boost valuations pre-IPO."

* Edited due to mistyping a number.

2nd edit to stop more Linchings: They aren't talking about prime-age labor force participation rate in the doc. This comment was written under the assumption that they were, because total LFPR is basically useless as a statistic.

3Linch4mo

Your comment still does not make sense to me.

1Rattengift4mo

Well, yes. It was, as Vivek already pointed out, based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by a number. I was assuming it was based around prime-age LFPR; it wasn't. I still think the end conclusion in my comment is more or less true, however.

Fwiw when people talk about the "unemployment rate", both colloquially and in political discussions, they're usually referring to U-3, which is unemployed people who sought work some time in the last 4 weeks. It is currently at 4.2%.

This makes a lot of sense as a short-term/political category, but makes less sense if we're envisioning long-term changes.

I dunno if prime-age LFPR instead of LFPR would make Plan A easier to digest (and would tentatively bet against). An obvious problem with that is that the numbers will be closer to U-3 so misunderstanding t... (read more)