What's the difference?

Produce more with the same workers = produce the same with less workers. Both reduce the number of humans needed to produce X number of crops.

And even if it mattered, I don't think you have a clue what farmers wanted. I've worked on farms and have family members who own farms, ranging from single-family farms, to a farm system big enough to have its own trucking line, and land in 22 states. I can tell you that in both cases they are interested in reducing the number of workers needed, because workers represent an expense to them.

I for one wouldn't want to go back to a world with no internet. Been there, done that.
Nor would I want to go back to a world without internet-enabled jobs. Done that too.

Of all human inventions, I'd say the internet is the most beneficial to mankind, even more than the computer itself. There's a reason today's computers are little more than a gateway to the internet.

So yes, in my view, both the internet *and* jobs are better today.

Thanks for responding. Sometimes I feel like the only sane person in the room, especially reading the comments on this article. It's nice to know there's another person out there that gets it.

It reminds me of Y2K, I had to talk all kinds of people, including friends and relatives, off the ledge.

When it comes to "replacing workers" AI is far from a new phenomenon. Every invention ever, has been about "replacing workers." And every invention ever, depended on "replacing workers" to be financially viable.

That $300K farm combine replaces 20-30 workers. https://ironsolutions.com/a-br... It depends for its financial viability, on replacing those 20-30 workers.

And so it has always been. Yes, even the internet itself depends on "replacing workers" for its financial viability.

When people worry about AI taking all our jobs, they *are* thinking in terms like specific jobs being automated away. They can't see what new jobs will be created, and suggesting that they will surely be created, doesn't convince or help.

This analysis of what happened with the dawn of the internet is helpful in this way. It breaks down what kinds of jobs were lost, and what new kinds of jobs were created. We need more of this kind of analysis.

AI will take "most" of our jobs in the same way that the internet took "most" of yesterday's jobs. In the case of the internet, there were more, better jobs than before. I suspect the same will be true of the AI revolution.

People do have a desire for stasis, but that desire is overwhelmed by a desire for change. Specifically, people want things to be better, easier, more reliable, more automated.

I'm reminded of a company I worked for a decade ago, that built practice management software for doctors. Doctors are *notorious* for disliking change. Doctors would tell us about bugs in the software. When we told them that the bugs were fixed in the latest version, they would tell us they didn't want the latest version, they wanted the bugs fixed in the version they had!

So yeah, people do want it both ways. They want it better, and they want stability. But in the end, better wins.

AI solves many white-collar problems.
- Research is simplified and more straightforward.
- Coding assistants help developers in areas where they are less familiar, like a new API or framework.
- AI is getting quite good at document analysis. For example, today's crop of AI-assisted resume readers, is quite good at pulling important information from resumes, which have no predefined structure. This pattern holds true with many kinds of documents.
- Formulating structured requirements from informal prompts.

If you're not aware of what AI can do for a business, you probably have been intentionally avoiding AI use.

The line between cellphones and internet is thin, since most of what the cellphone does is...on the internet.

But the internet/cellphones have affected trades quite a bit.
- Giving directions to a work location is no longer a thing. Just an address is enough.
- Work orders are sent to workers via the internet, instead of being dispatched by radio.
- Work scheduling is often done in real time by computer, and transmitted to workers via the internet.
- Parts ordering is often done by the worker on site, using their phone, instead of radioing back to home base to have somebody call in the order.
- Billing and payment processing is often done on site using a POS device or a cellphone.

In other words, the *logistics* of trades is what has been heavily impacted by the internet.

But just think, AI will take all those meetings and automate them! Sounds like a win to me!

Funny, but ironically, if humans were brutally honest on their resumes, they'd had to admit exactly that.

I'm glad to see that Apple prices have come down a bit.

For comparison, an HP Windows 11 desktop with 64 GB of RAM + 1 TB storage comes in at $900. https://www.amazon.com/HP-400-...

There are even cheaper options, depending on your specs.

> Canada has THIRTY PERCENT higher median wealth than America. That's the sum of savings, despite lower income,

Interesting. Perhaps that extra “THIRTY PERCENT” accumulation of wealth is necessary as a cushion against the lower median salaries? To cushion against Canada’s lower social security payments in retirement? Or to counter a higher capital gains rate? Or to save up for higher cost real estate purchases? And does that “wealth” include real estate? I’ve heard Canada’s real estate has become significantly “overpriced” in comparison to the U.S.

(Of course this is way off the original topic - I show median teacher salaries are higher median overall salaries using specific census and BLS data elsewhere.)

> because we have far lower medical insurance costs and precarity.

Seems unlikely to be the main reason. First and second quintile U.S. households are almost 100% covered for medical costs - either by private or public plans. The middle quintile, is perhaps 75% covered - e.g. they’re assumed to be able to afford to make up the difference. The 10% of these folks who choose to forgo insurance, don’t bother to sign up for public, or are illegal immigrants, are, by law, still required to be treated at hospitals if they show up there - the government pays the hospitals back via the EMTALA system.

...they are both still there. Moving the capital won't change that.

They can't fix climate change either.