TL;DR
An essay argues that the central economic question about AI should be its effect on total output rather than on who captures profits. Using thought experiments—washing machines, calories, and yachts—the author says production patterns determine how widely gains are shared and calls for policies that raise output.
What happened
In a recent essay, the author uses simple thought experiments to shift the AI debate from distribution of profits to changes in aggregate output. He notes that goods like washing machines or daily calories are widespread and therefore reflect broadly shared prosperity, while mega-yachts are rare luxury items whose production influences inequality differently. Historical automation is cited: about 300,000 telephone operator jobs in 1955 were largely replaced as labor shifted into growing sectors such as restaurants, leaving unemployment rates similar but living standards higher. The author argues that AI's social impact depends on whether it enables mass consumer goods (for example, household robots or self-driving cars) or instead expands production of luxury items. Policy recommendations include a progressive consumption tax, upzoning to add housing, and opposition to policies the author views as reducing output (rent control, certain regulations). Several political examples and past tax choices are used to illustrate the point.
Why it matters
- The composition of what an economy produces—mass consumer goods versus luxury items—shapes how broadly technological gains are shared.
- Automation can lower prices and free labor for other sectors, potentially raising living standards even as specific jobs disappear.
- Policy choices that affect output (taxes, zoning, regulations) can be more consequential for equality than focusing only on income distribution.
- If AI enables production of widely consumed goods, its benefits are likelier to reach average households regardless of who owns capital.
Key facts
- The author uses a back‑of‑the‑envelope estimate: roughly 130 million U.S. households based on 340 million people and about 2.6 people per household.
- An AI overview cited in the piece gives 132.5 million U.S. households and an unspecified number of washing machines.
- Thought experiments compare ubiquitous goods (washing machines, daily calories) to rare luxury items (private mega‑yachts) to illustrate how output structure affects inequality.
- The author states there were about 300,000 telephone operators around 1955 and argues those jobs were largely replaced by growth in service jobs like waitressing.
- Current U.S. unemployment is described as about the same as in 1955 while telephone service became cheaper and restaurant options expanded.
- The author favors a steeply progressive consumption tax as a redistribution policy (as opposed to taxing capital income).
- The 1990 U.S. luxury tax on items like yachts was enacted and later repealed, according to the essay; repeal followed opposition including concerns about job losses in yacht building.
- The author recommends building more housing through upzoning and suggests adding another 10 million homes to improve median housing conditions, while criticizing rent control as reducing housing output.
What to watch next
- Whether AI development leads primarily to mass consumer products (e.g., household robots, self‑driving cars) rather than expanded luxury production — not confirmed in the source
- Moves at the national level to adopt a progressive consumption tax as proposed by the author — not confirmed in the source
- Local and state decisions on upzoning and large‑scale housing construction (the essay points to adding 10 million homes as a target) — not confirmed in the source
- Policy changes that the author views as output‑reducing (rent control, bans on driverless cars, restrictions on offshore wind, and similar measures) — not confirmed in the source
Quick glossary
- Aggregate output: The total quantity of goods and services produced in an economy over a period of time.
- Progressive consumption tax: A tax system that taxes spending at higher rates for wealthier individuals, aiming to target consumption rather than income or capital.
- Upzoning: Changing local land‑use rules to allow higher‑density development, often intended to increase housing supply.
- NIMBY: An acronym for 'Not In My Back Yard,' describing local opposition to development projects perceived as undesirable.
Reader FAQ
How many washing machines does the author estimate the US has?
The author reasons that most households have a washing machine and estimates roughly 130 million households; the exact number of machines is not specified.
Is the essay claiming AI will make everyone rich?
The author says the key question is whether AI raises overall output enough to broadly raise living standards; whether AI will make everyone rich is not confirmed in the source.
What policy changes does the author support to spread gains?
He endorses a progressive consumption tax and increased housing construction via upzoning, and criticizes policies he sees as reducing output such as rent control.
Does the author think automation destroys jobs overall?
He argues automation reallocates labor—citing the decline in telephone operator roles and growth in restaurant jobs—as historically compatible with similar unemployment but higher living standards.
Discover more from The Pursuit of Happiness Nostalgia for the Neoliberal Era Over 8,000 subscribers Subscribe By subscribing, I agree to Substack's Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection…
Sources
- Imagine 130M Washing Machines
- Go Big: Why Large-Capacity Washers Are Important …
- The Weeb Economy
- A-New-Textiles-Economy-Redesigning-fashions-future.pdf
Related posts
- YC-backed RevisionDojo accused of coordinated astroturfing aimed at students
- Anna’s Archive .org Domain Suspended; Operators Point to Alternatives
- Jensen: ‘We’ve Done Our Country a Great Disservice’ by Offshoring