Resolution Criteria:
The question will resolve to YES if at least one of the following occurs:
The broader unemployment rate (U-6) reaches 50% or higher
The labor force participation rate drops by 50% or more from its 2024 baseline of 62.5%. In this context the LFPR should fall to 31.3% or lower.
Fine Print:
This question is concerned with lost jobs and not the number of hours worked per week. If that number goes from 40 hours/week to 20 hours/week or less that will not matter to the resolution of this question.
Background:
There is controversy on whether Al will take away human jobs. The way to resolve this is to know whether Al will create more jobs than it destroys. The best way to measure the net jobs is to calculate (new jobs - lost jobs) is the unemployment rate. The broader unemployment rate (U6) is used to include “discouraged workers” who have stopped looking for work. The broader unemployment rate (U6) should be sufficient for resolving this question. The Labor Force Participation Rate is used as a backup measurement in case the U6 unemployment rate turns out to be unreliable.
1,000
3.00This question's resolution mechanism is not well tied to its title. If AIs take a very large share of jobs, the most likely outcome is that many people will drop out of the workforce, and the unemployment rate will vastly understate the fraction of jobs taken by AI.
@AbuElBanat If people loose their jobs to AI then the human unemployment rate will show that. That is the metric for this question. You need to explain why the unemployment rate will not capture that.
@yaqubali Because people who drop out of the workforce do not count as unemployed. So to illustrate with an example, if AI takes 60% of all human jobs, and half of the people who lost their jobs to AI keep looking fruitlessly for work forever, but the other half of people who lost their jobs to AI give up hope and stop looking for work, the unemployment rate would rise to 30%, not 60%.
@AbuElBanat that is a good point. How long do people need to stop looking for work to be counted as “giving up.”
Would the Labor Participation Rate be a better metric?
@yaqubali I'd suggest the prime-age employment to population ratio: Employment-Population Ratio - 25-54 Yrs. (LNS12300060) | FRED | St. Louis Fed
Betting no because I strongly believe humans aren’t happy without work and achievement. Most people want to earn the good things they have in life, it doesn’t feel the same if you’re handed it. We’ve already been creating new jobs for decades many of which aren’t as useful as the ones they replaced, to keep the system of resource allocation and incentives working
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
How do I win cash prizes?
and can't be cashed out. to participate and winners can withdraw sweepcash as a cash prize. You can filter for sweepstakes markets on the browse page.1.00Related questions
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
How do I win cash prizes?
and can't be cashed out. to participate and winners can withdraw sweepcash as a cash prize. You can filter for sweepstakes markets on the browse page.1.00