Podcast appearances and mentions of David Autor

With the year coming to a close, we're sharing our most popular Planet Money bonus episode of 2025! As U.S. trade with China exploded in the early 2000's, American manufacturing began to shrivel. Those workers struggled to adapt and find new jobs. It ran counter to how mainstream economics at the time viewed free trade ... that it would be a clear win for the U.S. Greg Rosalsky talks with David Autor about why economists got free trade with China so wrong.  Autor, an MIT economics professor, and his colleagues published a series of eye-opening studies over the last 15 years or so that brought to light the costs of U.S. trade with China. We also hear Autor's thoughts on the role of tariffs and get an update on his research. With better, more precise data, Autor says we have a more nuanced and "bleaker" picture of what happened to these manufacturing workers. You can read about Autor's research and sign up for The Planet Money Newsletter here. To hear more bonus content like this and support NPR and public media, sign up for Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney. Regular episodes remain free to listen!Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In this kickoff to our special series on trade, Nick and Goldy unpack why trade policy isn't just about tariffs and treaties—it's about people, power, and priorities. For decades, the prevailing narrative has been that trade benefits everyone by lowering prices. But the real question is: who does it help, and who does it hurt? From the false promises of globalization to the overlooked damage in hollowed-out communities, this episode sets the stage for exploring a fresh way to think about trade—one grounded in power dynamics, democratic values, and middle-out economics. David Autor is a labor economist and professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies how technological change and globalization affect workers. He is also co-director of the MIT Shaping the Future of Work Initiative and the National Bureau of Economic Research Labor Studies Program. Marc-William Palen is a historian and senior lecturer at the University of Exeter, specializing in the history of international relations, U.S. foreign policy, and political economy. He is the author of Pax Economica: Left-Wing Visions of a Free Trade World.  Social Media:  @davidautor.bsky.social @davidautor @mwpalen.bsky.social @MWPalen Further reading:  Places versus People: The Ins and Outs of Labor Market Adjustment to Globalization Pax Economica: Left-Wing Visions of a Free Trade World Recovering the Left-Wing Free Trade Tradition  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: ⁠The Pitch⁠

The Curve of Time, Chapter 80 — The Chaos of Her Other Selves, in which Saskia returns to LA and Mica.Followed by some musings on predicting the future, including a shout out to the Possible Podcast and specifically the episode with David Autor.Explore more at www.writtenbyrufus.com where you can join in a discussion of this chapter at the bottom of the text version of this episode.

Today on the show, Russian President Vladimir Putin has just 37 days to meet Trump's deadline for a peace deal - but Moscow seems unphased as Russian forces continues to pummel Ukraine. Fareed talks to Alina Polyakova, the president of the Center for European Policy Analysis about prospects for peace.    Then, a violent power struggle is emerging in post-Assad Syria. Robert Worth, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, joins the show to discuss Israel's recent strike on Syria's defense ministry, and the growing rift between the US and Israel over Syria.    Next, this week the White House announced its plan to make America the world leader in artificial intelligence - largely by scaling back regulations. Fareed sits down with Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist Bill Gates to talk about how he sees the present and future of AI.   Finally, economist David Autor warns a second ‘China shock' is on the horizon -- and says it may be worse than the first.   GUESTS: Alina Polyakova (@apolyakova), Robert Worth (@robertfworth),  Bill Gates (@BillGates), David Autor (@davidautor) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Even as the U.S. begins decoupling from our Asian rival, the threat of a second “China shock”—one where the country's economy dominates key resources and minerals—is rapidly emerging.Brad Setser, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Oren to dig into how China's new wave of industrial overcapacity, currency manipulation, and continued cheap exports could ravage America's economy a second time. They explore how this will impact the global economy, and how the Trump administration could respond with smart industrial policy.Further reading:“The Case that China is Now Actively Resisting Pressure on the Yuan to Appreciate” by Brad Setser"We Warned About the First China Shock. The Next One Will Be Worse" by David Autor and Gordon Hanson

Recorded live at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum 2025.  This year the annual Paris School of Economics-PSE Policy Forum is organized around three themes: artificial intelligence and labour reallocation, working conditions and remote work, and inequality in the workplace. In short, what's work going to look like in the future?  Our series of podcasts, recorded live at the event, starts with David Autor's work on the impact of AI on jobs. Rather than speculate about how soon AI will destroy work, David's research focuses on which tasks AI will automate, and what that means in terms of the expertise needed to do these jobs in the future. He tells Tim Phillips that some jobs will become more expert and some less – but the employment effects of AI may be the opposite of what many people expect. 

What if AI helped people develop and deepen their existing expertise, and better outfitted them for the jobs of the future? This week, Reid and Aria are joined by one of the world's leadest labor economists, David Autor, Ford Professor of Economics at MIT and co-director of its Work of the Future Task Force. He is also a Visiting Fellow in the Google Technology and Society Program. David's landmark research on the China Shock has become foundational for policymakers grappling with globalization's labor impacts. Reid, Aria, and David discuss the parallels between China Shock and AI Shock, the labor market, how AI can help us make better decisions, automation vs. collaboration, and AI's potential to enhance human-centered jobs. For more info on the podcast and transcripts of all the episodes, visit https://www.possible.fm/podcast/  Topics: 2:27 - Hellos and intros 4:30 - China Shock vs. AI Shock  10:56 - How AI could affect skill-based labor  15:37 - Google Gemini aside: more about the air traffic controller shortage 16:31 - How technologies can be amplifiers of expertise 22:09 - AI as a collaboration tool  24:52 - Why speed of labor market change makes a difference 29:25 - How AI can be good for the middle class 31:04 - Learning to use AI to your advantage 34:27 - More upward mobility at work  41:39 - Technology increasing quality of life  47:34 - Tools to put in place to ensure improvements for all  50:29 - Successfully transitioning to a new AI future 56:51 - Rapid-fire questions Select mentions:  Geoffrey Hinton WALL-E Mad Max: Fury Road NPR's Tiny Desk Concert Series Possible is an award-winning podcast that sketches out the brightest version of the future—and what it will take to get there. Most of all, it asks: what if, in the future, everything breaks humanity's way? Tune in for grounded and speculative takes on how technology—and, in particular, AI—is inspiring change and transforming the future. Hosted by Reid Hoffman and Aria Finger, each episode features an interview with an ambitious builder or deep thinker on a topic, from art to geopolitics and from healthcare to education. These conversations also showcase another kind of guest: AI. Each episode seeks to enhance and advance our discussion about what humanity could possibly get right if we leverage technology—and our collective effort—effectively.

When economic news, especially that revolving around working, gets reported, it tends to get reported in aggregate – the total number of jobs affected or created, the average wage paid, the impact on a defined geographic area. This is an approach labor economist David Autor knows well. But he also knows that the aggregate often masks the effect on the individual. In this Social Science Bites podcast, Autor, the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor, Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow, Google Technology and Society Visiting Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines two momentous changes to global economics and how they play out for individuals. He explains to interviewer David Edmonds how the rise of China's manufacturing dominance and the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence likely are and will affect individual people accustomed to do specific tasks for pay. What he finds is not as straightforward as the headlines alluded to above. Take China and its remarkable ascent and how that impacted the United States. “[The rise] benefited a lot of people. It lowered prices. It allowed American companies to kind of produce a lot of products more cheaply. You know, it's hard to imagine Apple's growth without China, for example, to do all that assembly, which would have been extremely expensive to do in the United States. At the same time, it displaced a lot of people, more than a million, and in a very geographically and temporarily concentrated way, extremely scarring the labor market. Now those people also got lower prices, but that's not even remote compensation for what they lost. And now there are new jobs -- even in those places where those trade shock occurs -- but it's not really the same people doing them. It's not the people who lost manufacturing work.” Concerns about these shocks have been widespread in the 2020s, but the tough if erratic talk about tariffs coming from the U.S. president centers on the idea of restoring something (while ignoring question of that thing ever existed or if it makes sense to go back). Autor argues that the administration actually is asking the right question – but they are arriving at the wrong answers, He notes that the U.S. currently has a half a million unfilled manufacturing jobs open already, a sizeable figure relative to the nation's 13 million manufacturing workers. But that number itself is roughly a tenth of China's 120 million. “We cannot compete with them across every front. .. What we should be very deeply worried about is losing the frontier sectors that we currently maintain. Those are threatened. So aircraft, telecommunications, robotics, power generation, fusion, quantum computing, batteries and storage, electric vehicles, shipping. These are sectors that we still have (except for shipping, actually) but China is making incredibly fast progress, and instead of trying to get commodity furniture back, we need to think about the current war we're in, not the last war.” At MIT, Autor is co-director of the School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative, while off campus he is a research associate and co-director of the Labor Studies Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

When China joined the World Trade Organization at the start of this century, its surging exports rattled US manufacturing. Prices fell, jobs became less lucrative, and communities that relied on these jobs were hit hard. President Donald Trump seems determined to bring those jobs back to the US. Is that realistic or even desirable? The FT's chief economics commentator Martin Wolf speaks to MIT economics professor David Autor about the "China shock" and the (potentially more significant) AI challenge that lies ahead.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The “China Shock”—triggered by the country's entry into the World Trade Organization—devastated America's heartland, causing a sudden exodus of manufacturing jobs and disrupting the communities that depended on them. Promoters of globalization promised “better” jobs would take their place. Nearly 25 years later, has that happened?David Autor, professor of economics at MIT and co-author of the famous “China Shock” paper, joins Oren to talk about the effects of free trade on America's working class. They also examine Autor's latest paper, which highlights that the new jobs in the hardest-hit communities often don't provide the pay or stability that the jobs outsourced by globalization did—and, even worse, that many former workers lack access to these jobs altogether. Plus, they explore the rise of automation in manufacturing and the implications of AI for American workers.Further reading:"Places versus People: The Ins and Outs of Labor Market Adjustment to Globalization" by David Autor, David Dorn, et al. "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade" by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson

How the Trump administration is using tariffs as a negotiating tool to weaken the U.S. dollar and increase the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.Topics covered include:Why U.S. stocks are falling, and recession risk is increasingHow the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency is becoming a burden on the U.S.How the Trump administration aims to reduce its trade deficit and make it less attractive for foreign governments to own U.S. assetsWhat are the risks of trying to weaken the U.S. dollarEpisode SponsorsDelete Me – Use code David20 to get 20% offStawberry.meInsiders Guide Email NewsletterGet our free Investors' Checklist when you sign up for the free Money for the Rest of Us email newsletterOur Premium ProductsAsset CampMoney for the Rest of Us PlusShow NotesStock Market News, March 10, 2025: Nasdaq Falls 4% After Trump Doesn't Rule Out Recession by Caitlin McCabe and Krystal Hur—The Wall Street JournalTrump Says US Economy Faces ‘Transition,' Avoids Recession Call by María Paula Mijares Torres—BloombergIs the U.S. Heading for a Recession? Here's What the Experts Say by Caitlin McCabe—The Wall Street JournalMark Carney Wins Canada Liberal Contest, Will Succeed Trudeau in Days by Brian Platt and Laura Dhillon Kane—BloombergEntering the Fall 2024 | Alarming Signs? - Fireside Chat with Scott Bessent by Simplify Asset Management—YouTubeA User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System by Stephen Miran—Hudson Bay CapitalCould Trump devalue the dollar with a "Mar-a-Lago Accord"? by Paul Diggle and Luke Bartholomew—Aberdeen InvestmentsWonking Out: The Mysteries of the Almighty Dollar by Paul Krugman—The New York TimesOn the Persistence of the China Shock by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson—NBERManufacturing, value added (% of GDP)—World Bank Data Group | Prosperity Data360Council of Economic Advisors Chair Nominee Stephen Miran's Critique of the Global Monetary System—Part I by Steven B. Kamin—AEIUsing Stock Returns to Assess the Aggregate Effect of the U.S.‑China Trade War by Mary Amiti, Matthieu Gomez, Sang Hoon Kong, and David E. Weinstein—Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkTwo cheers for Germany's fiscal reform by Neil Shearing—Capital EconomicsRelated Episodes404: Why Is the U.S. Dollar So Strong? Will It Continue?322: Why Currency Exchange Rates MatterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's episode is a bonus drop from our friends over at the MIT CSAIL Alliances podcast. We'll back in two weeks for Season 11 of Me, Myself, and AI. David Autor, the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor, Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow in MIT's Department of Economics, says that AI is “not like a calculator where you just punch in the numbers and get the right answer. It's much harder to figure out how to be effective with it.” Offering unique insights into the future of work in an AI-powered world, Autor explains his biggest worries, the greatest upside scenarios, and how he believes we should be approaching AI as a tool, and addresses how AI will impact jobs like nursing and skilled trades. Read the episode transcript here. Studies and papers referenced in this conversation:  AI and Product Innovation AI and the Gender Gap Robotics and Nursing Homes CSAIL Alliances connects business and industry to the people and research of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Each month, the CSAIL podcast features cutting-edge MIT and CSAIL experts discussing their current research, challenges, and successes, as well as the potential impact of emerging tech. Follow the podcast here. Me, Myself, and AI is a collaborative podcast from MIT Sloan Management Review and Boston Consulting Group and is hosted by Sam Ransbotham and Shervin Khodabandeh. Our engineer is David Lishansky, and the coordinating producers are Allison Ryder and Alanna Hooper. Stay in touch with us by joining our LinkedIn group, AI for Leaders at mitsmr.com/AIforLeaders or by following Me, Myself, and AI on LinkedIn. We encourage you to rate and review our show. Your comments may be used in Me, Myself, and AI materials.

AEI's Michael Strain analyzes the mistakes left and right make about middle class stagnation, quality of life, and other matters. Plus, what is risked when Trump/Musk attack foundational institutions. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/mona and get on your way to being your best self. Referenced Works & Figures: Michael Strain's Book — The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It) Elizabeth Warren & Bill de Blasio – Critique of middle-class decline. Josh Hawley – Comment on wage stagnation. David Autor's "China Shock" Paper – Study on trade-induced job losses. Robert Bork's Antitrust Theories – Influence on U.S. competition policy. Smoot-Hawley Tariffs – Historical reference to the consequences of trade protectionism. Occupy Wall Street & Tea Party Movements – Examples of populist political reactions. Federal Job Training Programs – Discussion on their past inefficacy and recent improvements.

China's entry into the World Trade Organization, normalizing trade relations with the PRC, was billed to the American public as a rising tide that lifts all boats. But decades later, many of the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs to cheaper Chinese goods have not recovered. And while the first “China shock” left millions of […]

China's entry into the World Trade Organization, normalizing trade relations with the PRC, was billed to the American public as a rising tide that lifts all boats. But decades later, many of the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs to cheaper Chinese goods have not recovered. And while the first “China shock” left millions of textile and low-skill manufacturing workers without a job, Chinese trade practices are now targeting sectors crucial to American prosperity and national security. How can the U.S. protect vital industries from unfair trade practices? And why is it so difficult to help those who lose their job to trade find new work? David Autor is the Daniel and Gail Rubinfeld Professor in the MIT Department of Economics and co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research Labor Studies Program and the MIT Shaping the Future of Work Initiative. Autor is also an elected Fellow of the Econometrics Society, the Society of Labor Economists, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Faculty Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. In 2019, the Economist labeled Autor “The academic voice of the American worker.”Read the transcript here. Subscribe to our Substack here.

This week, Nick and Goldy discuss the future of AI and its potential impact on labor markets and society with MIT professor and economist David Autor. While many pundits predict that AI will bring economic misery to working Americans, Autor optimistically argues that AI could empower the middle class by augmenting human expertise, unlocking new solutions to complex problems, and enabling individuals with fewer formal skills to excel in areas requiring advanced knowledge. Professor Autor also underscores the need for targeted investments, labor market supports, and thoughtful regulations to ensure the benefits of AI are widely and equitably distributed rather than concentrated among a privileged few. It's a fascinating discussion about the future of AI that tackles the pressing questions about its ethical deployment, the risks of monopolization, and the societal shifts required to harness it for the greater good. David Autor is a labor economist and professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies how technological change and globalization affect workers. He is also co-director of the MIT Shaping the Future of Work Initiative and the National Bureau of Economic Research Labor Studies Program. Social Media Twitter: @davidautor Further reading:  NOEMA - AI Could Actually Help Rebuild The Middle Class New York Times - How One Tech Skeptic Decided A.I. Might Benefit the Middle Class Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: The Pitch

Rebroadcast: Labor economist David Autor's research shows how historically, technological advances hurt the incomes of middle- and working-class Americans. But when it comes to AI, Autor says the exact opposite could happen.

Zachary Mazlish is an economist at the University of Oxford, and he joins David on Macro Musings to explain some recent and important macroeconomic developments, specifically the inflation linkages to the 2024 presidential election and the macroeconomic implications of transformative AI. David and Zach also discuss transformative AI's impact on asset pricing, optimal monetary policy in world of high growth, the causes of the slowdown in trend productivity, and more.   Transcript for this week's  episode.   Zach's Twitter: @ZMazlish Zach's Substack Zach's website   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server!   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *Yes, Inflation Made the Median Voter Poorer* by Zachary Mazlish   *Transformative AI, Existential Risk, and Real Interest Rates* by Trevor Chow, Basil Halperin, and Zachary Mazlish   *Decomposing the Great Stagnation: Baumol's Cost Disease vs. “Ideas Are Getting Hard to Find”* by Basil Halperin and Zachary Mazlish   *The Unexpected Compression: Competition at Work in the Low Wage Labor Market* by David Autor, Arin Dube, and Annie McGrew   Timestamps:   (00:00:00) – Intro   (00:04:03) – Inflation Made the Median Voter Poorer: Comparing Periods of Wage Growth   (00:15:26) – Inflation Made the Median Voter Poorer: The Median Change in the Wage   (00:22:19) – Assessing the Feedback to Zachary's Article   (00:25:05) – The Significance of Transformative AI and its Double-Edged Sword   (00:27:02) – The Impact of Transformative AI on Asset Pricing and its Policy Challenges   (00:38:07) – The Broader Macroeconomic Effects of Rapid Growth   (00:41:05) – Optimal Monetary Policy in a World of High Growth   (00:43:19) – Exploring the Causes of the Productivity Slowdown   (00:49:21) – Outro

It's true that robots (and other smart technologies) will kill many jobs. It may also be true that newer collaborative robots (“cobots”) will totally reinvigorate how work gets done. That, at least, is what the economists are telling us. Should we believe them? SOURCES:David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.James Rosenman, C.E.O. of Andrus on Hudson senior care community.Karen Eggleston, economist at Stanford University.Yong Suk Lee, professor of technology, economy, and global affairs at the University of Notre Dame. RESOURCES:"Robots and Labor in Nursing Homes," by Yong Suk Lee, Toshiaki Iizuka, and Karen Eggleston (NBER Working Paper, 2024)."Global Robotics Race: Korea, Singapore and Germany in the Lead," by International Federation of Robotics (2024)."Unmet Need for Equipment to Help With Bathing and Toileting Among Older US Adults," by Kenneth Lam, Ying Shi, John Boscardin, and Kenneth E. Covinsky (JAMA Internal Medicine, 2021)."Robots and Labor in the Service Sector: Evidence from Nursing Homes," by Karen Eggleston, Yong Suk Lee, and Toshiaki Iizuka (NBER Working Papers, 2021).The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines, by David Autor, David Mindell, Elisabeth Reynolds, and the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future (2020)."Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," by Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo (University of Chicago Press, 2020)."The Slowdown in Productivity Growth and Policies That Can Restore It," by Emily Moss, Ryan Nunn, and Jay Shambaugh (The Hamilton Project, 2020)."The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," by David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson (NBER Working Papers, 2016)."Deregulation at Heart of Japan's New Robotics Revolution," by Sophie Knight and Kaori Kaneko (Reuters, 2014). EXTRAS:"What Do People Do All Day?" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Did China Eat America's Jobs?" by Freakonomics Radio (2017).

Les institutions démocratiques favorisent-elles la croissance économique et la prospérité au bénéfice de l'ensemble d'une population ? Question épineuse et passionnante posée par les trois lauréats du prix Nobel d'économie Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson et Simon Johnson qui se sont notamment intéressés à l'Histoire de la colonisation. Nous vous proposons un entretien exceptionnel avec l'un d'entre eux (à lire ci-dessous). Dans la seconde partie de l'émission, retour sur le plan Sénégal 2050 présenté par le président Bassirou Diomaye Faye et son gouvernement dirigé par Ousmane Sonko. Les pistes proposées seront-elles à la hauteur des attentes d'une population qui s'impatiente ? Sont-elles réalisables au vu du contexte international et des contraintes économiques ?NOTRE INVITÉ :- Meissa Babou, enseignant chercheur au département d'économie de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (Sénégal)Enfin, nous réfléchissons sur le futur du secteur automobile dans le monde intimement lié aux bras de fer commerciaux entre les grandes puissances : illustration au Mondial de l'Automobile 2024 à Paris avec l'influence grandissante des constructeurs chinois en pointe en particulier dans le domaine des véhicules électriques. Quelle est leur stratégie à long terme ? Y a t-il un risque de surcapacité ? Comment les Européens peuvent-ils défendre leur industrie ? Quelle conséquence pour la décarbonation du secteur ?NOS INVITÉS :- Alicia Garcia Herrero, chef économiste pour l'Asie-Pacifique chez Natixis, basée à Hong-Kong- Antoine Le Bec, chargé d'études chez Futuribles, centre de réflexion sur notre avenir et auteur d'une note intitulée «Automobile : vers un leadership chinois. Les constructeurs chinois à l'assaut du marché mondial». NOTRE ENTRETIEN :Simon Johnson, enseignant en sciences économiques au Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) est l'un des trois lauréats du Prix Nobel d'économie 2024 pour ses travaux sur la compréhension des inégalités et des écarts de richesses entre les nations. Il a accordé un long entretien à Paola Ariza, journaliste à la rédaction en espagnol de RFI. RFI : Simon Johnson, qu'avez-vous ressenti lorsque vous avez remporté ce prix Nobel avec vos collègues ? Simon Johnson : Eh bien, j'ai d'abord été très surpris et puis très vite, absolument ravi.  Votre travail a mis en lumière la relation entre le système politique et la croissance économique. 20% des pays du monde sont 30 fois plus riches que les 20% les plus pauvres. Pourquoi ces inégalités ? Simon Johnson : L'Histoire a une influence énorme, et plus précisément la façon dont de nombreux pays ont été colonisés et dirigés par les puissances européennes. Bien sûr, les Européens n'ont pas colonisé toute la planète, mais une bonne partie. Parfois cet héritage aura été positif pour le développement économique de ces pays, mais parfois assez négatif. Il est très important de se rappeler que l'impact sur les peuples autochtones, même dans des endroits ou des pays qui sont devenus prospères, Les peuples autochtones ont toujours souffert très durement de la colonisation européenne.  Un pays est-il prédestiné à devenir riche ou alors pauvre?  Simon Johnson : Non, il n'y a pas de prédestination, il faut faire les bons choix. J'ai été pendant un certain temps haut fonctionnaire et économiste en chef au Fonds monétaire international. Et nous avons travaillé longtemps et dur pour aider les pays et les gouvernements à faire de meilleurs choix qui aideraient à partager la prospérité dans ces endroits. Mais il est difficile d'échapper aux héritages que les Européens ont laissé derrière eux.  Dans vos recherches, vous mentionnez aussi l'importance des institutions pour combattre les inégalités et promouvoir la croissance. De quelles institutions parlez-vous?  Simon Johnson : Nous avons toujours souligné l'importance des interactions entre les institutions politiques. Si vous avez une démocratie vraiment viable et robuste avec une alternance au pouvoir et la possibilité de contester les élites dirigeantes existantes et ainsi de suite... Mais, en parallèle, ce qui compte, ce sont les institutions économiques. Est-ce qu'il y a des droits de propriété garantis si vous vous lancez dans un investissement ? Allez-vous récupérer les bénéfices de cet investissement ou sera-t-il accaparé par une personne puissante, un voisin ou un chef, ou une entreprise ? C'est donc la combinaison des institutions politiques et économiques qui, je pense, est la plus importante. Vous parlez plus précisément des institutions inclusives, qui sont liées à la démocratie, qui sont bonnes pour la croissance et la prospérité à long terme et puis d'autre part les institutions extractives mènent à la pauvreté. Comment en êtes-vous arrivé à cette conclusion? Et pourquoi est-il difficile de réformer les institutions extractives? Simon Johnson : C'est parce que certaines personnes y gagnent beaucoup. Celles qui ont dirigé le commerce des esclaves, qui était dirigé par des Européens, les gens qui ont exploité les plantations, souvent des Européens, les gens qui ont mis en place des contrats miniers par exemple au Pérou et ainsi de suite. Un petit nombre de personnes gagnent donc beaucoup d'argent et deviennent riches grâce aux institutions extractives. Ces riches obtiennent aussi beaucoup de pouvoir politique et peuvent défendre les arrangements qui leur sont favorables. Et même s'il y a un coup d'état ou une révolution ou un renversement du gouvernement, ces leviers de pouvoir économique restent très concentrés. Vous dites que les pays qui se démocratisent, à partir d'un régime non démocratique, se développent plus vite que les régimes non démocratiques. En 8 ou 9 ans. Comment faites-vous ce calcul? On pense bien sûr à l'Amérique latine, aux pays qui ont souffert de dictatures ou même aux pays actuels où les lacunes de la démocratie sont dénoncées. Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, la démocratie n'est pas parfaite, les démocraties sont vulnérables aux chocs économiques. Nous ne disons pas que c'est une baguette magique ou que les résultats positifs sont nécessairement immédiats. Mais sur le long terme, vous voyez que parfois les régimes autoritaires font bien pendant un certain temps, et parfois ils peuvent même laisser les salaires augmenter. Mais tôt ou tard, le dictateur devient vieux, le dictateur devient corrompu. Et ces régimes ont prouvé à maintes reprises, y compris en Amérique latine, leur fragilité.  Maintenant, les démocraties doivent produire des résultats. On ne peut pas dire “les élections ont été libres et équitables, on peut se détendre ! “. Non. Vous devez vous assurer que la prospérité est partagée. Sinon, vous créez de la frustration. Et qu'en est-il de la Chine, et plus généralement des économies asiatiques dans des pays pas toujours démocratiques ? Mais avec de fortes croissances, grâce à la technologie. Quelle est votre analyse ? Simon Johnson : C'est très intéressant de voir que les salaires des travailleurs peu qualifiés au Japon après la Seconde Guerre mondiale augmentent lentement au début. Mais à partir des années 1970, ils augmentent plus vite comme aux États-Unis. C'est la même tendance en Corée du Sud pendant cette période où l'on s'oriente vers la démocratie mais cela prend du temps et avec des conflits.Pour la Chine, il y a très peu d'augmentation de salaires depuis le début des années 1990, lorsque la libéralisation a vraiment commencé. Et puis les Chinois ont arrêté de publier les données. C'est même en fait un crime qui peut être puni de prison si vous publiez ces données en dehors de la Chine. Il faut donc poser la question : si la prospérité est si largement partagée en Chine, pourquoi ne publient-ils pas les données sur les salaires ?Vous dénoncez aussi la corruption dans les pays du sud global mais aussi dans les pays du nord qui handicape le développement. Comment faire pour la réduire ? Simon Johnson : Oui, je pense que la corruption est un problème énorme partout où elle apparaît dans le monde. Il y a toujours quelqu'un qui reçoit le pot-de-vin et quelqu'un qui le paie. Et dans de nombreux cas, il est payé par des gens qui sont assez riches, comme des entreprises étrangères, américaines ou européennes. Il y a beaucoup de belles paroles mais dans de nombreux pays, y compris les pays à faible revenu, la corruption est pire aujourd'hui qu'elle ne l'était dans les années 1990. Avec la mondialisation, les capitaux circulent plus librement entre les pays. La corruption est devenue encore plus un obstacle au développement économique, à la prospérité partagée avec tous les niveaux de revenus.  Pourquoi pensez-vous qu'il y a plus de corruption à notre époque ? Qu'est ce qui a changé ? Simon Johnson : Pensez aux énergies propres par exemple qui intéressent tout le monde et moi aussi. Elles nécessitent un certain nombre de composants clés. Des minéraux, y compris le lithium. Donc, si votre pays a beaucoup de lithium, vous pouvez finalement participer à l'économie mondiale. Mais qui contrôle les droits sur ce lithium? Qui détermine le prix? Ce seront les gens qui ont de l'électricité et qui paient pour ce lithium. Ce sont des entreprises mondiales qui veulent fabriquer des batteries.  Donc, je pense qu'il y a une forme de complaisance. Dans les pays riches, nous nous bouchons les yeux pour ne pas voir les mauvaises pratiques dans les pays qui ont un déficit d'institutions et qui sont donc vulnérables à la corruption. Simon Johnson, vos travaux portent aussi sur le développement de la technologie et de l'intelligence artificielle. Très peu de grandes entreprises et de pays détiennent ces marchés qui ont de forts impacts sur les emplois et le produit intérieur brut. Qu'en pensez-vous ?   Simon Johnson : Oui, en réalité, un seul pays possède les entreprises dominantes, ce sont les États-Unis d'Amérique. Nous avons un groupe de recherche au MIT avec mon collègue prix Nobel Daron Acemoglu et David Autor, l'un des plus grands économistes du travail dans le monde. Notre position, c'est que l'intelligence artificielle offre une occasion d'accroître la productivité des travailleurs à faible revenu et moins qualifiés, ce qui pourrait être très utile pour faire progresser les classes moyennes, pas seulement aux États-Unis. Mais au lieu de saisir cette opportunité, les grandes entreprises technologiques sont obsédées par une vision dans laquelle l'IA est avant tout une technologie d'automatisation, ce qui signifie que vous utilisez ces algorithmes pour remplacer les humains à grande échelle, et si ce processus d'automatisation avance aussi rapidement que le voudraient les soi-disant visionnaires du secteur, nous perdrons des millions d'emplois avant d'avoir le temps et la possibilité de créer de nouveaux emplois pour les remplacer. Nous reproduisons encore plus vite le processus dans les économies industrielles lorsque la technologie numérique s'est répandue à partir des années 1980. Donc, l'IA est dangereuse mais seulement sur le plan de l'emploi, parce que si nous choisissons de développer des technologies en augmentant la productivité des travailleurs peu qualifiés, alors l'IA sera très utile pour soutenir les classes moyennes, réduire la polarisation du marché du travail et réduire, espérons-le, la polarisation politique. Comment voyez-vous l'impact du changement climatique sur l'économie? Un sujet d'actualité chez vous aux Etats-Unis... Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, nous avons eu des événements tragiques aux États-Unis récemment avec deux ouragans, beaucoup de pluies par exemple dans les montagnes de la Caroline du Nord sur des personnes qui pensaient être loin du risque climatique, parce qu'elles sont très loin de la mer mais dont les maisons ont été emportées. Donc je pense que ces phénomènes extrêmes vont toucher tout le monde, partout. Et bien sûr, nous devrions nous rendre moins vulnérables. Mais nous devons vraiment nous attaquer au problème sous-jacent, à savoir notre utilisation continue et excessive des combustibles fossiles en modifiant les politiques. Mais il faut aussi développer de nouvelles technologies. Nous devons accélérer les investissements dans ce domaine pour créer des emplois, de bons emplois aux États-Unis et dans le monde entier. Au final, à quoi vont servir vos recherches ? Simon Johnson : Évidemment, gagner ce prix, c'est un immense honneur, C'est une reconnaissance de notre travail et pour ceux qui en bénéficient. Maintenant, il y a des décisions qui peuvent être prises. Non, le monde n'est pas figé. Nous devons redoubler d'efforts, nous devons impliquer plus de personnes, nous devons donner aux jeunes chercheurs les moyens nécessaires, permettre aux universités et aux entreprises de trouver les bonnes solutions. Depuis 30 ans, j'ai travaillé sur certains des problèmes les plus difficiles. J'ai travaillé avec le mouvement Solidarnosc en Pologne. J'ai travaillé pendant la crise financière asiatique en 1997 et pendant la crise financière américaine de 2008. J'ai travaillé sur la réforme financière dans de nombreux pays, j'ai travaillé pendant la COVID et rien ne dit que j'ai eu la bonne solution ou la bonne réponse. Il suffit de trouver les bonnes personnes, qui vont dans la bonne direction et les soutenir politique, avec la technologie et tout ce que l'on peut mobiliser.Propos recueillis par Paola Ariza, journaliste à RFI.Retrouvez nous sur Facebook et X.

Les institutions démocratiques favorisent-elles la croissance économique et la prospérité au bénéfice de l'ensemble d'une population ? Question épineuse et passionnante posée par les trois lauréats du prix Nobel d'économie Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson et Simon Johnson qui se sont notamment intéressés à l'Histoire de la colonisation. Nous vous proposons un entretien exceptionnel avec l'un d'entre eux (à lire ci-dessous). Dans la seconde partie de l'émission, retour sur le plan Sénégal 2050 présenté par le président Bassirou Diomaye Faye et son gouvernement dirigé par Ousmane Sonko. Les pistes proposées seront-elles à la hauteur des attentes d'une population qui s'impatiente ? Sont-elles réalisables au vu du contexte international et des contraintes économiques ?NOTRE INVITÉ :- Meissa Babou, enseignant chercheur au département d'économie de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (Sénégal)Enfin, nous réfléchissons sur le futur du secteur automobile dans le monde intimement lié aux bras de fer commerciaux entre les grandes puissances : illustration au Mondial de l'Automobile 2024 à Paris avec l'influence grandissante des constructeurs chinois en pointe en particulier dans le domaine des véhicules électriques. Quelle est leur stratégie à long terme ? Y a t-il un risque de surcapacité ? Comment les Européens peuvent-ils défendre leur industrie ? Quelle conséquence pour la décarbonation du secteur ?NOS INVITÉS :- Alicia Garcia Herrero, chef économiste pour l'Asie-Pacifique chez Natixis, basée à Hong-Kong- Antoine Le Bec, chargé d'études chez Futuribles, centre de réflexion sur notre avenir et auteur d'une note intitulée «Automobile : vers un leadership chinois. Les constructeurs chinois à l'assaut du marché mondial». NOTRE ENTRETIEN :Simon Johnson, enseignant en sciences économiques au Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) est l'un des trois lauréats du Prix Nobel d'économie 2024 pour ses travaux sur la compréhension des inégalités et des écarts de richesses entre les nations. Il a accordé un long entretien à Paola Ariza, journaliste à la rédaction en espagnol de RFI. RFI : Simon Johnson, qu'avez-vous ressenti lorsque vous avez remporté ce prix Nobel avec vos collègues ? Simon Johnson : Eh bien, j'ai d'abord été très surpris et puis très vite, absolument ravi.  Votre travail a mis en lumière la relation entre le système politique et la croissance économique. 20% des pays du monde sont 30 fois plus riches que les 20% les plus pauvres. Pourquoi ces inégalités ? Simon Johnson : L'Histoire a une influence énorme, et plus précisément la façon dont de nombreux pays ont été colonisés et dirigés par les puissances européennes. Bien sûr, les Européens n'ont pas colonisé toute la planète, mais une bonne partie. Parfois cet héritage aura été positif pour le développement économique de ces pays, mais parfois assez négatif. Il est très important de se rappeler que l'impact sur les peuples autochtones, même dans des endroits ou des pays qui sont devenus prospères, Les peuples autochtones ont toujours souffert très durement de la colonisation européenne.  Un pays est-il prédestiné à devenir riche ou alors pauvre?  Simon Johnson : Non, il n'y a pas de prédestination, il faut faire les bons choix. J'ai été pendant un certain temps haut fonctionnaire et économiste en chef au Fonds monétaire international. Et nous avons travaillé longtemps et dur pour aider les pays et les gouvernements à faire de meilleurs choix qui aideraient à partager la prospérité dans ces endroits. Mais il est difficile d'échapper aux héritages que les Européens ont laissé derrière eux.  Dans vos recherches, vous mentionnez aussi l'importance des institutions pour combattre les inégalités et promouvoir la croissance. De quelles institutions parlez-vous?  Simon Johnson : Nous avons toujours souligné l'importance des interactions entre les institutions politiques. Si vous avez une démocratie vraiment viable et robuste avec une alternance au pouvoir et la possibilité de contester les élites dirigeantes existantes et ainsi de suite... Mais, en parallèle, ce qui compte, ce sont les institutions économiques. Est-ce qu'il y a des droits de propriété garantis si vous vous lancez dans un investissement ? Allez-vous récupérer les bénéfices de cet investissement ou sera-t-il accaparé par une personne puissante, un voisin ou un chef, ou une entreprise ? C'est donc la combinaison des institutions politiques et économiques qui, je pense, est la plus importante. Vous parlez plus précisément des institutions inclusives, qui sont liées à la démocratie, qui sont bonnes pour la croissance et la prospérité à long terme et puis d'autre part les institutions extractives mènent à la pauvreté. Comment en êtes-vous arrivé à cette conclusion? Et pourquoi est-il difficile de réformer les institutions extractives? Simon Johnson : C'est parce que certaines personnes y gagnent beaucoup. Celles qui ont dirigé le commerce des esclaves, qui était dirigé par des Européens, les gens qui ont exploité les plantations, souvent des Européens, les gens qui ont mis en place des contrats miniers par exemple au Pérou et ainsi de suite. Un petit nombre de personnes gagnent donc beaucoup d'argent et deviennent riches grâce aux institutions extractives. Ces riches obtiennent aussi beaucoup de pouvoir politique et peuvent défendre les arrangements qui leur sont favorables. Et même s'il y a un coup d'état ou une révolution ou un renversement du gouvernement, ces leviers de pouvoir économique restent très concentrés. Vous dites que les pays qui se démocratisent, à partir d'un régime non démocratique, se développent plus vite que les régimes non démocratiques. En 8 ou 9 ans. Comment faites-vous ce calcul? On pense bien sûr à l'Amérique latine, aux pays qui ont souffert de dictatures ou même aux pays actuels où les lacunes de la démocratie sont dénoncées. Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, la démocratie n'est pas parfaite, les démocraties sont vulnérables aux chocs économiques. Nous ne disons pas que c'est une baguette magique ou que les résultats positifs sont nécessairement immédiats. Mais sur le long terme, vous voyez que parfois les régimes autoritaires font bien pendant un certain temps, et parfois ils peuvent même laisser les salaires augmenter. Mais tôt ou tard, le dictateur devient vieux, le dictateur devient corrompu. Et ces régimes ont prouvé à maintes reprises, y compris en Amérique latine, leur fragilité.  Maintenant, les démocraties doivent produire des résultats. On ne peut pas dire “les élections ont été libres et équitables, on peut se détendre ! “. Non. Vous devez vous assurer que la prospérité est partagée. Sinon, vous créez de la frustration. Et qu'en est-il de la Chine, et plus généralement des économies asiatiques dans des pays pas toujours démocratiques ? Mais avec de fortes croissances, grâce à la technologie. Quelle est votre analyse ? Simon Johnson : C'est très intéressant de voir que les salaires des travailleurs peu qualifiés au Japon après la Seconde Guerre mondiale augmentent lentement au début. Mais à partir des années 1970, ils augmentent plus vite comme aux États-Unis. C'est la même tendance en Corée du Sud pendant cette période où l'on s'oriente vers la démocratie mais cela prend du temps et avec des conflits.Pour la Chine, il y a très peu d'augmentation de salaires depuis le début des années 1990, lorsque la libéralisation a vraiment commencé. Et puis les Chinois ont arrêté de publier les données. C'est même en fait un crime qui peut être puni de prison si vous publiez ces données en dehors de la Chine. Il faut donc poser la question : si la prospérité est si largement partagée en Chine, pourquoi ne publient-ils pas les données sur les salaires ?Vous dénoncez aussi la corruption dans les pays du sud global mais aussi dans les pays du nord qui handicape le développement. Comment faire pour la réduire ? Simon Johnson : Oui, je pense que la corruption est un problème énorme partout où elle apparaît dans le monde. Il y a toujours quelqu'un qui reçoit le pot-de-vin et quelqu'un qui le paie. Et dans de nombreux cas, il est payé par des gens qui sont assez riches, comme des entreprises étrangères, américaines ou européennes. Il y a beaucoup de belles paroles mais dans de nombreux pays, y compris les pays à faible revenu, la corruption est pire aujourd'hui qu'elle ne l'était dans les années 1990. Avec la mondialisation, les capitaux circulent plus librement entre les pays. La corruption est devenue encore plus un obstacle au développement économique, à la prospérité partagée avec tous les niveaux de revenus.  Pourquoi pensez-vous qu'il y a plus de corruption à notre époque ? Qu'est ce qui a changé ? Simon Johnson : Pensez aux énergies propres par exemple qui intéressent tout le monde et moi aussi. Elles nécessitent un certain nombre de composants clés. Des minéraux, y compris le lithium. Donc, si votre pays a beaucoup de lithium, vous pouvez finalement participer à l'économie mondiale. Mais qui contrôle les droits sur ce lithium? Qui détermine le prix? Ce seront les gens qui ont de l'électricité et qui paient pour ce lithium. Ce sont des entreprises mondiales qui veulent fabriquer des batteries.  Donc, je pense qu'il y a une forme de complaisance. Dans les pays riches, nous nous bouchons les yeux pour ne pas voir les mauvaises pratiques dans les pays qui ont un déficit d'institutions et qui sont donc vulnérables à la corruption. Simon Johnson, vos travaux portent aussi sur le développement de la technologie et de l'intelligence artificielle. Très peu de grandes entreprises et de pays détiennent ces marchés qui ont de forts impacts sur les emplois et le produit intérieur brut. Qu'en pensez-vous ?   Simon Johnson : Oui, en réalité, un seul pays possède les entreprises dominantes, ce sont les États-Unis d'Amérique. Nous avons un groupe de recherche au MIT avec mon collègue prix Nobel Daron Acemoglu et David Autor, l'un des plus grands économistes du travail dans le monde. Notre position, c'est que l'intelligence artificielle offre une occasion d'accroître la productivité des travailleurs à faible revenu et moins qualifiés, ce qui pourrait être très utile pour faire progresser les classes moyennes, pas seulement aux États-Unis. Mais au lieu de saisir cette opportunité, les grandes entreprises technologiques sont obsédées par une vision dans laquelle l'IA est avant tout une technologie d'automatisation, ce qui signifie que vous utilisez ces algorithmes pour remplacer les humains à grande échelle, et si ce processus d'automatisation avance aussi rapidement que le voudraient les soi-disant visionnaires du secteur, nous perdrons des millions d'emplois avant d'avoir le temps et la possibilité de créer de nouveaux emplois pour les remplacer. Nous reproduisons encore plus vite le processus dans les économies industrielles lorsque la technologie numérique s'est répandue à partir des années 1980. Donc, l'IA est dangereuse mais seulement sur le plan de l'emploi, parce que si nous choisissons de développer des technologies en augmentant la productivité des travailleurs peu qualifiés, alors l'IA sera très utile pour soutenir les classes moyennes, réduire la polarisation du marché du travail et réduire, espérons-le, la polarisation politique. Comment voyez-vous l'impact du changement climatique sur l'économie? Un sujet d'actualité chez vous aux Etats-Unis... Simon Johnson : Bien sûr, nous avons eu des événements tragiques aux États-Unis récemment avec deux ouragans, beaucoup de pluies par exemple dans les montagnes de la Caroline du Nord sur des personnes qui pensaient être loin du risque climatique, parce qu'elles sont très loin de la mer mais dont les maisons ont été emportées. Donc je pense que ces phénomènes extrêmes vont toucher tout le monde, partout. Et bien sûr, nous devrions nous rendre moins vulnérables. Mais nous devons vraiment nous attaquer au problème sous-jacent, à savoir notre utilisation continue et excessive des combustibles fossiles en modifiant les politiques. Mais il faut aussi développer de nouvelles technologies. Nous devons accélérer les investissements dans ce domaine pour créer des emplois, de bons emplois aux États-Unis et dans le monde entier. Au final, à quoi vont servir vos recherches ? Simon Johnson : Évidemment, gagner ce prix, c'est un immense honneur, C'est une reconnaissance de notre travail et pour ceux qui en bénéficient. Maintenant, il y a des décisions qui peuvent être prises. Non, le monde n'est pas figé. Nous devons redoubler d'efforts, nous devons impliquer plus de personnes, nous devons donner aux jeunes chercheurs les moyens nécessaires, permettre aux universités et aux entreprises de trouver les bonnes solutions. Depuis 30 ans, j'ai travaillé sur certains des problèmes les plus difficiles. J'ai travaillé avec le mouvement Solidarnosc en Pologne. J'ai travaillé pendant la crise financière asiatique en 1997 et pendant la crise financière américaine de 2008. J'ai travaillé sur la réforme financière dans de nombreux pays, j'ai travaillé pendant la COVID et rien ne dit que j'ai eu la bonne solution ou la bonne réponse. Il suffit de trouver les bonnes personnes, qui vont dans la bonne direction et les soutenir politique, avec la technologie et tout ce que l'on peut mobiliser.Propos recueillis par Paola Ariza, journaliste à RFI.Retrouvez nous sur Facebook et X.

How can people in all corners of the world participate in the AI revolution and unlock benefits in their own lives? James Manyika, Senior Vice President of Research, Technology & Society at Google, joins the show to discuss global access to AI and the impact on capitalism, the economy, science, and the workforce. He speaks to Google's latest AI developments, including tools to warn people about natural disasters like floods and wildfires, along with the virtual research assistant NotebookLM. Read the transcript of this episode here: www.possible.fm/podcasts/manyika For more info on the podcast and transcripts of all the episodes, visit https://www.possible.fm/podcast/  Topics: 01:18 - Hellos and intros 02:36 - James's career and path into AI 03:59 - UN involvement and diversity of perspectives in global AI  08:04 - Learnings from UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI 10:01 - NotebookLM demo 12:06 - Specific uses of the virtual research assistant NotebookLM  15:03 - Global positive impacts of AI 18:38 - AI and capitalism, the economy  24:10 - AI and climate change  29:17 - Humanity and AI development  32:14 - How to mitigate risks  35:02 - The rising importance of humanist disciplines  36:50 - NotebookLM rollout  39:31 - Truth and bias in the age of AI 40:58 - Rapid-fire questions Select mentions:  NotebookLM - https://notebooklm.google.com/  Governing AI for Humanity, from the UN's High-level Advisory Body on AI - https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/governing_ai_for_humanity_final_report_en.pdf Project Green Light - https://sites.research.google/greenlight/  “Applying AI to Rebuild Middle Class Jobs” by David Autor - https://www.nber.org/papers/w32140  “Accelerating Climate Action with AI” from BCG – https://web-assets.bcg.com/72/cf/b609ac3d4ac6829bae6fa88b8329/bcg-accelerating-climate-action-with-ai-nov-2023-rev.pdf  Possible is an award-winning podcast that sketches out the brightest version of the future—and what it will take to get there. Most of all, it asks: what if, in the future, everything breaks humanity's way? Tune in for grounded and speculative takes on how technology—and, in particular, AI—is inspiring change and transforming the future. Hosted by Reid Hoffman and Aria Finger, each episode features an interview with an ambitious builder or deep thinker on a topic, from art to geopolitics and from healthcare to education. These conversations also showcase another kind of guest: AI. Whether it's Inflection's Pi, OpenAI's ChatGPT or other AI tools, each episode will use AI to enhance and advance our discussion about what humanity could possibly get right if we leverage technology—and our collective effort—effectively.

David Autor took his first economics class at 29 years old. Now he's one of the central academics studying the labor market. The M.I.T. economist and Steve dissect the impact of technology on labor, spar on A.I., and discuss why economists can sometimes be oblivious. SOURCES:David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. RESOURCES:"Does Automation Replace Experts or Augment Expertise? The Answer Is Yes," by David Autor (Joseph Schumpeter Lecture at the European Economic Association Annual Meeting, 2024).“Applying AI to Rebuild Middle Class Jobs,” by David Autor (NBER Working Paper, 2024).“New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018,” by David Autor, Caroline Chin, Anna Salomons, and Bryan Seegmiller (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2024).“Bottlenecks: Sectoral Imbalances and the US Productivity Slowdown,” by Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, and Christina Patterson (NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2024)."Good News: There's a Labor Shortage," by David Autor (The New York Times, 2021)."David Autor, the Academic Voice of the American Worker," (The Economist, 2019).“Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation,” by David Autor (The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2015).“The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market,” by David Autor and David Dorn (The American Economic Review, 2013).“The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States,” by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson (The American Economic Review, 2013). EXTRAS:"What Do People Do All Day?" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Daron Acemoglu on Economics, Politics, and Power," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2024)."You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Experiment," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022)."In Search of the Real Adam Smith," series by Freakonomics Radio (2022)."Max Tegmark on Why Superhuman Artificial Intelligence Won't be Our Slave," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2021)."Automation," by Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (2019).

Sixty percent of the jobs that Americans do today didn't exist in 1940. What happens as our labor becomes more technical and less physical? And what kinds of jobs will exist in the future?  SOURCES:David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Paula Barmaimon, manager of coverage and audience analytics at The New York Times.Ellen Griesedieck, artist and president of the American Mural Project.Adina Lichtman, co-host of the Our Friends Are Smart party.Avi Popack, co-host of the Our Friends Are Smart party.Huck Scarry, author and illustrator.James Suzman, anthropologist and author.Ben Varon, rabbi and chaplain at NYU Langone Hospital—Brooklyn . RESOURCES:"New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," by David Autor, Caroline Chin, Anna Salomons, and Bryan Seegmiller (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2024).Work: A Deep History, from the Stone Age to the Age of Robots, by James Suzman (2020).Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do, by Studs Terkel (1974).What Do People Do All Day?, by Richard Scarry (1968)."Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," by John Maynard Keynes (1930).American Mural Project. EXTRAS:"Will the Democrats 'Make America Great Again'?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."How to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot Apocalypse," by Freakonomics Radio (2021)."Did China Eat America's Jobs?" by Freakonomics Radio (2017).People I (Mostly) Admire.

MIT economics professor David Autor and president and CEO of Y Combinator Garry Tan join Washington Post Live to discuss how the next phase of the artificial intelligence revolution could impact America's businesses, workforce and economy. Conversation recorded on Wednesday, October 2, 2024.

The Future of Student Search Pulse Check Series is sponsored by Carnegie. When talking about the future of Student Search, you can't go a day without talking about the impact of technology and AI. In this episode, Trent Gilbert, VP of Student Search Solutions at Carnegie, and Paul LeBlanc, Former President of Southern New Hampshire University, discuss how technology can be used to amplify and improve human connections and the impact of AI on the workforce. They discuss the ethical considerations of AI and the importance of using it in ways that align with human values. Key takeaways include:The use of technology to amplify and improve human relationships, rather than replace them.How AI has the potential to radically change the workforce.Ethical considerations that are crucial in the development and use of AI.How AI is changing the landscape of Student Search.Links:“Applying AI to Rebuild Middle Class Jobs,” by David Autor on nber.orgTechnological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms by Carlota Perez on jstor.comPaul's Book Broken: How Our Social Systems are Failing Us and How We Can Fix Them https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Social-Systems-Failing-Them/dp/1637741766Guest Name: Paul LeBlanc, Former President, Southern New Hampshire UniversityGuest Bio: Paul LeBlanc spent two-decades as president of Southern New Hampshire University and helped transform the struggling private residential institution of 2,500 students into the largest higher education provider in the United States, renowned for its excellence in online education. LeBlanc, who retired from his post at SNHU this past June, is now the co-founder of Human Systems, a company working to reimagine learning for the age of AI.Guest Social: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-j-leblanc-6a17749/Pulse Check Host: Trent Gilbert - VP of Student Search Solutions at Carnegiehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/trentgilbert/Having served as Vice President for Enrollment at three different institutions, Trent Gilbert understands the challenges and pressures modern-day enrollment managers face at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition to serving as a former VPEM, Trent also co-founded and served as an industry leader of Render Experiences, which put him at the table of enrollment strategy conversations at over 250 institutions. As the VP of Student Search Solutions at Carnegie, Trent is uniquely positioned to work with clients and create tailored solutions that creatively engage students while keeping the experience of human connection at the forefront of the process. - - - -Connect With Our Co-Hosts:Mallory Willsea https://www.linkedin.com/in/mallorywillsea/https://twitter.com/mallorywillseaSeth Odell https://www.linkedin.com/in/sethodell/https://twitter.com/sethodellAbout The Enrollify Podcast Network:The Higher Ed Pulse is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too! Some of our favorites include Generation AI and Confessions of a Higher Education Social Media Manager.Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — the next-generation AI student engagement platform helping institutions create meaningful and personalized interactions with students. Learn more at element451.com.Element451 is hosting the AI Engage Summit on Oct 29 and 30Register now for this free, virtual event.The future of higher ed is being redefined by the transformative power of AI. The AI Engage Summit brings together higher ed leaders, innovators, and many of your favorite Enrollify creators to explore AI's impact on student engagement, enrollment marketing, and institutional success. Experience firsthand how AI is improving content personalization at scale, impacting strategic decision-making, and intuitively automating the mundane tasks that consume our time. The schedule is packed with real examples and case studies, so you leave knowing how to harness AI to drive meaningful change at your institution. Whether you're looking to enhance student outcomes, optimize enrollment marketing, or simply stay ahead of the curve, the AI Engage Summit is your gateway to the next level of higher education innovation. Registration is free, save your spot today.

New technology has rarely led to fewer jobs, though it often impacts the way we work — eliminating old ways of doing things to create new opportunities. To mitigate workforce disruption from the rise of AI and automation, we must invest in our people to enhance the value of expertise and enable valuable work. But how do we ensure that AI is constructive and not destructive? On this episode, we're joined by David Autor, a renowned labour force economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who has spent his career studying the consequences of technology on jobs and the economy.

Welcome to this week's episode of "The Mixtape with Scott”! This podcast is dedicated to capturing the personal stories of living economists and creating an oral history of the profession through these narratives. This week, I'm excited to welcome David Autor, an esteemed labor economist from MIT, where he serves as the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor, as well as the Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow. He was also last year's VP of the AEA, is on the Foreign Affairs board of the US State Department, and is a Digital Fellow at Stanford Digital Economy Lab. The number of accolades is too numerous to list, though, so I will just say that David's pioneering work in labor economics, particularly on the impact of trade, technological change, and the computerization of work, has significantly shaped and re-shaped our understanding of these critical areas.David Autor is perhaps best known for his influential research on the economic impacts of globalization and technological advancements. His groundbreaking study with David Dorn and Gordon Hanson on the effects of Chinese trade on U.S. labor markets highlighted the deep and often painful economic adjustments faced by local labor markets exposed to import competition. Additionally, his work on the computerization of labor, including studies on skill-biased technological change, has provided crucial insights into how technological advancements reshape the labor market and wage structures.One of the things you'll learn in the interview, just as a teaser, is that David was mentored by Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, and that mentorship had a lasting effect. Not only did it changed his own human capital and trajectory, it seems also that it changed David's own attitudes about mentorship. And although we couldn't delve into artificial intelligence in our conversation, Autor's extensive research on the computerization of labor probably positions him as one of a handful of working economists at the moment whose voice will be kay in understanding the future intersections of AI and labor economics, and probably more than that. So with that I'll stop, but thanks again to everyone for all your support. If you like the podcast, please share it!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Plus Why Google AI Search Blew Up (subscribe in the links below) Get a free 20-page AI explainer: AI FROM ZERO plus these stories and more, delivered to your inbox, every weekday. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://aidaily.us  Like this? Get AIDAILY, delivered to your inbox, every weekday. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://aidaily.us AI Cracks the Code of Smell Advances in machine olfaction, or digitized smell, are enabling computers to identify and interpret odors. Machine learning, particularly deep learning, maps molecular structures to odor descriptors, overcoming data shortages with larger datasets. This progress promises applications in personalized perfumes, insect repellents, disease detection, and augmented reality. Why AI Search Blew Up in Google's Face Google's AI Overviews, part of its AI-powered search enhancements, produced bizarre and inaccurate answers, revealing the challenges of automating the search process. Despite years of AI expertise, Google overestimated its technology's capabilities and underestimated the complexity of user needs. This debacle highlights the difficulty of automating tasks traditionally managed by human users.  Corporate Lobbyists Swarm Capitol Hill to Shape AI Policy Lobbying for AI regulation surged in 2023, with over 3,400 lobbyists deployed, a 120% increase from the previous year. Public Citizen warns that corporate interests dominate AI policy discussions, potentially prioritizing profits over public welfare. Federal agencies are working on AI regulations to ensure transparency and accountability, but corporate influence remains a concern.  AI Enhances, Not Replaces, Expertise MIT's David Autor argues that AI can augment human expertise and help restore middle-skill jobs, unlike past automation. Discussed at Singapore's Asian Monetary Policy Forum, AI's potential in sectors like healthcare demonstrates its role in complementing skills and addressing labor shortages due to declining birthrates. iOS 18's AI Will Summarize Notifications, Articles, and More Apple's iOS 18, part of Project Greymatter, will enhance Siri, Notes, and Messages with AI capabilities like notification summarization, article transcription, and text summarization. These features aim to improve user experience by automating routine tasks and offering advanced functionalities such as AI-powered photo editing, mathematical notation in Notes, and enhanced natural language responses. AI's Environmental Impact Exposed Mariana Mazzucato warns about the significant energy consumption of AI technologies like ChatGPT, which exacerbate environmental issues. Datacenters, crucial for AI operations, contribute more to global emissions than commercial flights. The extraction of minerals for these technologies also harms the environment and human rights. Policymakers must ensure transparency and sustainable practices in the tech industry. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aidaily/message

Labor economist David Autor's research shows how historically, technological advances hurt the incomes of middle- and working-class Americans. But when it comes to AI, Autor says the exact opposite could happen.

Quickly evolving technology such as artificial intelligence coupled with changing labor dynamics have altered the workplace. Labor economist and MIT professor David Autor delve into these two critical areas in his conversation with Gene Marks on Paychex THRIVE, a Business Podcast, to help the audience understand the shifting trends impacting businesses. They also discuss strategies around integrating AI-driven insights with human expertise.    Topics Include: 00:00: Episode Preview 00:01:01: Introduction of David Autor 00:01:40: Autor's background 00:03:32: Discussion on industry dynamics 00:03:51: Impacts of AI on labor markets 00:08:33: AI and decision making in various industries 00:09:37: AI and skills re-evaluation 00:11:19: Skills needed for future with AI 00:15:19: AI's current potential 00:17:16: Long-term impact on labor markets 00:18:17: Discussion on potential disruptions of future technology 00:23:16: Discussion on minimum wage debate 00:29:45: Current state of workforce after pandemic 00:33:24: Wrap-up and thank you DISCLAIMER: The information presented in this podcast, and that is further provided by the presenter, should not be considered legal or accounting advice, and should not substitute for legal, accounting, or other professional advice in which the facts and circumstances may warrant. We encourage you to consult legal counsel as it pertains to your own unique situation(s) and/or with any specific legal questions you may have.

New technology has rarely led to fewer jobs, though it often impacts the way we work — eliminating old ways of doing things to create new opportunities. To mitigate workforce disruption from the rise of AI and automation, we must invest in our people to enhance the value of expertise and enable valuable work. But how do we ensure that AI is constructive and not destructive? On this episode, we're joined by David Autor, a renowned labour force economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who has spent his career studying the consequences of technology on jobs and the economy.

Alle in der Tech-Welt wollen mit KI Geld verdienen - aber nicht alle schaffen es. Wer macht das große Geschäft? Chip-Hersteller wie Nvidia, Anbieter sogenannter Foundation Models wie OpenAI - oder am Ende doch eines der zahlreichen neuen Startups mit ihren spezialisierten KI-Produkten? Und was muss passieren, damit am Ende nicht nur Unternehmen profitieren, sondern auch die Arbeitnehmer? Wir tauchen ab in das KI-Ökosystem und schauen uns die großen und die kleinen Fische an. Über die Hosts: Gregor Schmalzried ist freier Tech-Journalist und Berater, er arbeitet u.a. für den Bayerischen Rundfunk und Brand Eins. Fritz Espenlaub ist freier Journalist und Moderator beim Bayerischen Rundfunk und 1E9 mit Fokus auf Technologie und Wirtschaft. 00:00 Intro 02:18 Das Wasser: Nvidia und co 06:06 Die Wale: Foundation Models 12:12 Und die anderen Fische: KI-Software aller Art 22:21 Profitieren nur Mega-Unternehmen oder wir alle? 30:57 Was haben wir diese Woche mit KI gemacht? Links Wird Googlen mit KI bald zahlungspflichtig? https://www.golem.de/news/suchmaschine-google-soll-ki-suche-als-bezahloption-planen-2404-183821.html Saudi Arabien will 40 Milliarden Dollar in KI-Firmen investieren: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/business/saudi-arabia-investment-artificial-intelligence.html Foundation Models versus KI-Software: https://every.to/napkin-math/what-are-ai-agents-and-who-profits-from-them Firma Dorfner macht mehr Umsatz mit KI: https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/ki/kuenstliche-intelligenz-dorfner-macht-durch-ki-schon-30-prozent-mehr-umsatz/100026634.html Daron Acemoglu und Simon Johnson: Power and Progress https://basicbooks.uk/titles/daron-acemoglu/power-and-progress/9781399804455/ David Autor in der NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/business/ai-tech-economy.html Künstler schreiben offenen Brief gegen KI: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/netzwelt/angriff-auf-die-kreativitaet-musiker-fordern-schutz-vor-ki,U8yXd6l Redaktion und Mitarbeit: David Beck, Cristina Cletiu, Chris Eckardt, Fritz Espenlaub, Marie Kilg, Mark Kleber, Gudrun Riedl, Christian Schiffer, Gregor Schmalzried Kontakt: Wir freuen uns über Fragen und Kommentare an podcast@br.de. Unterstützt uns: Wenn euch dieser Podcast gefällt, freuen wir uns über eine Bewertung auf eurer liebsten Podcast-Plattform. Abonniert den KI-Podcast in der ARD Audiothek oder wo immer ihr eure Podcasts hört, um keine Episode zu verpassen. Und empfehlt uns gerne weiter!

Across the Americas people looked up today, as a total solar eclipse journeyed across Mexico, toward the United States and Canada. The skies above delivered a huge communal opportunity across what can only be described as a bitterly divided country. As it started to pass across the Americas, physicist, mathematician, and author Brian Greene joined the program to discuss what made it so special.  Also on today's show: Sharone Lifschitz, Father held hostage in Gaza; David Autor, Ford Professor of Economics, MIT  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AI is an incredibly exciting space, provoking both great wonder and fear. One of the big worries obviously is: What will happen to everyone's job? Will it make more people's livelihoods obsolete, causing even greater inequality than we have now? On this episode, we speak with an economist who argues that this concern is not just misplaced, but exactly wrong. MIT's David Autor, famous for his work on the China shock, contends that the last 40 years of advances in computer technology have been a major driver of inequality, but AI should be seen as an entirely different paradigm. He argues that human work, aided by AI, will remove the premium captured by extremely high-paid, experienced professionals (like doctors or top lawyers) as their capabilities become more diffuse. He also discusses what policy choices the government should be making to improve the odds that AI will prove societally beneficial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this edition of Wall Street  Week, David Bianco, DWS CIO addresses some of the economic concerns he sees in 2024. Lawrence H. Summers, Former US Treasury Secretary gives us his reaction to the most recent US jobs numbers. Bloomberg International Economics and Policy Correspondent Michael McKee dives into the upcoming election and how it might impact the US economy, and David Autor, MIT Professor of Economics discusses what to expect from generative AI in 2024 and beyond.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Nikki Haley's progress and Ron DeSantis's stagnation in Iowa, Donald Trump's testimony in New York, and Dean Phillips's campaign in New Hampshire; the first social-media cases of the term at the Supreme Court; and Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream with author David Leonhardt. And you can be a part of the show: submit your Conundrum at slate.com/conundrum.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Brianne Pfannenstiel for the Des Moines Register: “Donald Trump builds on big lead as Nikki Haley pulls even with Ron DeSantis in Iowa Poll”  Jennifer Rubin for The Washington Post: “Nikki Haley has a shot. But a really, really long one.” Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess for The New York Times: “Trump Civil Fraud Trial: Donald Trump Jr. Resumes Testifying in Fraud Case Aimed at His Father” Geoffrey Skelley for 538: The curious case of Dean Phillips's last-minute primary challenge 538: “How popular is Joe Biden?” Jeff Neal for Harvard Law Today: “The Supreme Court takes on (anti)social media” Adam Liptak for The New York Times: “Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms” Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: “Justices take major Florida and Texas social media cases” Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream by David Leonhardt Emily Bazelon for The New York Times's The Morning newsletter, November 2, 2023 David Leonhardt for The Atlantic: “The Hard Truth About Immigration” Peter Dizikes for MIT News: “Q&A: David Autor on the long afterlife of the “China shock”” History.com: “A. Philip Randolph” Natasha Singer for The New York Times: “This Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened.” and “New Laws on Kids and Social Media Are Stymied by Industry Lawsuits” Cristiano Lima and Naomi Nix for The Washington Post: “41 states sue Meta, claiming Instagram, Facebook are addictive, harm kids”   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: The New Yorker's Poetry Podcast with Kevin Young: “Toi Derricotte Reads Tracy K. Smith” John: The Graham Norton Show: “Dame Judi Dench Masterfully Does A Shakespeare Sonnet”; BBC Radio 4's Cabin Pressure; Endeavour on PBS Masterpiece; John Dickerson for CBS News Prime Time: “Grammy-winning artist Jason Isbell talks about the craft of songwriting and his latest music”; and Ray Bradbury in the Los Angeles Times: “'Ice Cream Suit'--Touchstone for the Past and Present” David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: “Everything I Thought I Knew About Nasal Congestion Is Wrong” Listener chatter from Albert Fox Cahn: N'dea Yancey-Bragg for USA Today: “Advocates say excited delirium provides cover for police violence. They want it banned” and John Dickerson for CBS News 60 Minutes: “How a questionable syndrome, “Excited Delirium,” could be protecting police officers from misconduct charges”   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, Emily, John, and David talk about classroom cellphone bans. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Kristi Coulter about her book, Exit Interview: The Life and Death of My Ambitious Career.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Nikki Haley's progress and Ron DeSantis's stagnation in Iowa, Donald Trump's testimony in New York, and Dean Phillips's campaign in New Hampshire; the first social-media cases of the term at the Supreme Court; and Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream with author David Leonhardt. And you can be a part of the show: submit your Conundrum at slate.com/conundrum.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Brianne Pfannenstiel for the Des Moines Register: “Donald Trump builds on big lead as Nikki Haley pulls even with Ron DeSantis in Iowa Poll”  Jennifer Rubin for The Washington Post: “Nikki Haley has a shot. But a really, really long one.” Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess for The New York Times: “Trump Civil Fraud Trial: Donald Trump Jr. Resumes Testifying in Fraud Case Aimed at His Father” Geoffrey Skelley for 538: The curious case of Dean Phillips's last-minute primary challenge 538: “How popular is Joe Biden?” Jeff Neal for Harvard Law Today: “The Supreme Court takes on (anti)social media” Adam Liptak for The New York Times: “Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms” Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: “Justices take major Florida and Texas social media cases” Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream by David Leonhardt Emily Bazelon for The New York Times's The Morning newsletter, November 2, 2023 David Leonhardt for The Atlantic: “The Hard Truth About Immigration” Peter Dizikes for MIT News: “Q&A: David Autor on the long afterlife of the “China shock”” History.com: “A. Philip Randolph” Natasha Singer for The New York Times: “This Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened.” and “New Laws on Kids and Social Media Are Stymied by Industry Lawsuits” Cristiano Lima and Naomi Nix for The Washington Post: “41 states sue Meta, claiming Instagram, Facebook are addictive, harm kids”   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: The New Yorker's Poetry Podcast with Kevin Young: “Toi Derricotte Reads Tracy K. Smith” John: The Graham Norton Show: “Dame Judi Dench Masterfully Does A Shakespeare Sonnet”; BBC Radio 4's Cabin Pressure; Endeavour on PBS Masterpiece; John Dickerson for CBS News Prime Time: “Grammy-winning artist Jason Isbell talks about the craft of songwriting and his latest music”; and Ray Bradbury in the Los Angeles Times: “'Ice Cream Suit'--Touchstone for the Past and Present” David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: “Everything I Thought I Knew About Nasal Congestion Is Wrong” Listener chatter from Albert Fox Cahn: N'dea Yancey-Bragg for USA Today: “Advocates say excited delirium provides cover for police violence. They want it banned” and John Dickerson for CBS News 60 Minutes: “How a questionable syndrome, “Excited Delirium,” could be protecting police officers from misconduct charges”   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, Emily, John, and David talk about classroom cellphone bans. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Kristi Coulter about her book, Exit Interview: The Life and Death of My Ambitious Career.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Nikki Haley's progress and Ron DeSantis's stagnation in Iowa, Donald Trump's testimony in New York, and Dean Phillips's campaign in New Hampshire; the first social-media cases of the term at the Supreme Court; and Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream with author David Leonhardt. And you can be a part of the show: submit your Conundrum at slate.com/conundrum.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Brianne Pfannenstiel for the Des Moines Register: “Donald Trump builds on big lead as Nikki Haley pulls even with Ron DeSantis in Iowa Poll”  Jennifer Rubin for The Washington Post: “Nikki Haley has a shot. But a really, really long one.” Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess for The New York Times: “Trump Civil Fraud Trial: Donald Trump Jr. Resumes Testifying in Fraud Case Aimed at His Father” Geoffrey Skelley for 538: The curious case of Dean Phillips's last-minute primary challenge 538: “How popular is Joe Biden?” Jeff Neal for Harvard Law Today: “The Supreme Court takes on (anti)social media” Adam Liptak for The New York Times: “Supreme Court Lifts Limits for Now on Biden Officials' Contacts With Tech Platforms” Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: “Justices take major Florida and Texas social media cases” Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream by David Leonhardt Emily Bazelon for The New York Times's The Morning newsletter, November 2, 2023 David Leonhardt for The Atlantic: “The Hard Truth About Immigration” Peter Dizikes for MIT News: “Q&A: David Autor on the long afterlife of the “China shock”” History.com: “A. Philip Randolph” Natasha Singer for The New York Times: “This Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened.” and “New Laws on Kids and Social Media Are Stymied by Industry Lawsuits” Cristiano Lima and Naomi Nix for The Washington Post: “41 states sue Meta, claiming Instagram, Facebook are addictive, harm kids”   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: The New Yorker's Poetry Podcast with Kevin Young: “Toi Derricotte Reads Tracy K. Smith” John: The Graham Norton Show: “Dame Judi Dench Masterfully Does A Shakespeare Sonnet”; BBC Radio 4's Cabin Pressure; Endeavour on PBS Masterpiece; John Dickerson for CBS News Prime Time: “Grammy-winning artist Jason Isbell talks about the craft of songwriting and his latest music”; and Ray Bradbury in the Los Angeles Times: “'Ice Cream Suit'--Touchstone for the Past and Present” David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: “Everything I Thought I Knew About Nasal Congestion Is Wrong” Listener chatter from Albert Fox Cahn: N'dea Yancey-Bragg for USA Today: “Advocates say excited delirium provides cover for police violence. They want it banned” and John Dickerson for CBS News 60 Minutes: “How a questionable syndrome, “Excited Delirium,” could be protecting police officers from misconduct charges”   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, Emily, John, and David talk about classroom cellphone bans. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Kristi Coulter about her book, Exit Interview: The Life and Death of My Ambitious Career.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are you prepared for the future? What if we told you that philosophers will play a key role in it? We had a fascinating conversation with the brilliant Dr. Seth Benzel, a Digital Economist from MIT and Assistant Professor at Chapman University. He shared his insights about the transformation of job market landscape, the rise of new types of jobs, and the profound impact of AI on jobs and productivity. We explored how universities are stepping up, investing in STEM education, and how they can play a pivotal role in reducing inequalities and stimulating growth. Ever heard of luxury jobs, last mile jobs, or new tech jobs? These are part of David Autor's taxonomy of future jobs and they're not as far away as you might think. We also delved into the increasing wealth of the top 3% and the subsequent rise in demand for luxury services. What does this mean for you? Well, we chatted about the importance of teaching philosophy in universities and striking a balance between STEM skills and interpersonal skills. We rounded out our conversation by discussing the increasing compensation for leadership and cooperative jobs. Ready to equip yourself with the right skills to remain competitive in the modern job market? Then you don't want to miss this episode!Support the show

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/david_autor_will_automation_take_away_all_our_jobs ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/256-academic-words-reference-from-david-autor-will-automation-take-away-all-our-jobs-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/rZxxyW6ayTY (All Words) https://youtu.be/qOIQyx8F-TE (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/SDDfW4YTmPk (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

David Autor, economics professor at MIT, is widely regarded as one of the top labor economists in the world. Preet and Autor discuss what artificial intelligence tools will mean for jobs, and how technological innovations have impacted the labor market from the Industrial revolution until today. Plus, a U.S. Attorney resigns after investigations by multiple federal watchdog agencies found evidence of ethics violations. Don't miss the Insider bonus, where Preet and Autor discuss the value of engineering as a profession in the age of AI. To listen, try the membership for just $1 for one month: cafe.com/insider. For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/is-ai-coming-for-our-jobs-with-david-autor/ Tweet your questions to @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet, email us your questions and comments at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In his new book, "Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity", renowned MIT Professor of Economics Daron Acemoglu (with co-author Simon Johnson) argues that the benefits from technological progress are shaped by the distribution of power in society. In this episode, Acemoglu joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss the key challenges of ensuring that this progress benefits everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful. They discuss the rules, norms, and expectations around technology governance, the unintended consequences of AI development, and how the mismanagement of property rights, especially over data, can reinforce inequality and exploitation.Show Notes:In case you missed it, revisit our recent episode with David Autor, referenced in this discussionRevisit "Democracy and Economic Growth: New Evidence," co-authored by Daron Acemoglu, on ProMarket

For the last four decades, technology has been mostly a force for greater inequality and a shrinking middle class. But new empirical evidence suggests that the age of AI could be different. We speak to MIT's David Autor, one of the greatest labor economists in the world, who envisions a future where we use AI to make a wider array of workers much better at a whole range of jobs and help rebuild the middle class.This episode was produced by Dave Blanchard and edited by Molly Messick. It was fact-checked by Sierra Juarez and engineered by Katherine Silva. Jess Jiang is Planet Money's acting executive producer.Help support Planet Money and get bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.

On this episode, our hosts Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales sit down with renowned MIT economist David Autor to discuss the impact of technology, labor markets, and immigration on wage inequality and the economy at large. Autor is best known for his work on the "China Shock," the impact of rising Chinese exports on manufacturing employment in the United States and Europe after China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. His most recent work sheds light on which groups have seen the largest nominal wage gains during the COVID recovery, the connections between wage growth and inflation, and more. Autor discusses how advances in technology have disrupted traditional labor markets, how to make better policy choices about the future of work, and the challenges and benefits of immigration in a globalized economy.Show Notes:Revisit our conversation with R. Glenn Hubbard, which is referenced in the interview with David AutorRead the Autor's paper discussed in the episode here.

In this episode of the podcast, I chat to Anton Korinek about the economic impacts of GPT. Anton is a Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia and the Economics Lead at the Centre for AI Governance. He has researched widely on the topic of automation and labour markets. We talk about whether GPT will substitute for or complement human workers; the disruptive impact of GPT on the economic organisation; the jobs/roles most immediately at risk; the impact of GPT on wage levels; the skills needed to survive in an AI-enhanced economy, and much more.You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe the podcast on Apple, Spotify, Google, Amazon or whatever your preferred service might be. Relevant LinksAnton's homepageAnton's paper outlining 25 uses of LLMs for academic economistsAnton's dialogue with GPT, Claude and the economic David Autor #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

There's been a lot of anxiety lately about AI replacing workers. But what many economists are really worried about is not mass unemployment, but polarization. Emerging technology, they say, isn't coming for all our jobs—it's shrinking the middle class, specifically. Experts warn that we've seen this movie before with globalization a generation ago. Without a smart policy response, the coming shifts in the labor market could not only heighten economic hardship, but also sow even more division in our increasingly polarized society. In this episode, we ask: Could the robots come between us? And what can we do about it? MIT's Frank Levy and David Autor, Stanford's Erik Brynjolfsson, and CMU's Lee Branstetter suggest ways we can work together to ensure the Fourth Industrial Revolution is an economic reboot for the better.

ChatGPT is the latest example of technology that appears to be able to execute tasks that would have required the services of high level academics not too long ago. Similar AI initiatives are taking place across the world, which begs the question: is automation coming for knowledge work next? In this episode of the Sound of Economics, Giuseppe Porcaro invites Maria Savona, Professor of Applied Economics at the Department of Economics at LUISS University, Rome and Professor of Economics of innovation at SPRU, Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, UK, and David Autor, Ford Professor in the MIT Department of Economics, to discuss different perspectives and lessons from the US and Europe on the design of digital automation technologies and their implications for the future of work. This podcast was produced within the project "Transatlantic expert group on the future of work", with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Bruegel, AISBL and The German Marshall Fund of the United States and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Why will tech and automation never lead to the demise of human work? What qualifies as “good” work? What role will robots and AI play in the fast-approaching future? David Autor, MIT professor and co-chair of the MIT Task Force on The Work of The Future, provides answers in this riveting and enlightening conversation. 

As much as the media has been inundated with future of work stories that read like a Sci-Fi-like robot apocalypse, the future of work, in a very real sense, is already here. And what's really at stake is inequality. The real question for the future of work is not whether automation, robots and AI will replace jobs - they will. And, if history is any guide, as-yet unimaginable jobs will be created. Over 60 percent of the jobs today didn't exist in 1940, according to MIT researchers. The real question is - will the jobs that are created be “big enough” for workers and families to thrive, much less survive. And, given the current trajectory we're on, the answer is no. Since the 1980s, automation, globalization, the financialization of the U.S. economy and policies that rewarded capital instead of labor have led to a sharp polarization of the U.S. workforce. Middle class jobs lost have been replaced by increasingly unstable, precarious jobs - involuntary part-time, low-wages, with scant access to benefits like health care, and unpredictable schedules. But, as economist David Autor and his colleagues at MIT argue, that polarization is a choice. And we could come together as a society and make a different choice for the future. If we don't, he warns, we are building toward a stratified society of “the servers and the served.” Guests Joe Liebman, warehouse picker in St. Louis making $17.50/ hour. Lost his white collar job in the 2008 Great Recession - and his house, his family, his sense of wellbeing. David Autor, economist, MIT, co-chair of the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future. Resources: MIT Future of Work Task Force Future of Work Initiative, Aspen Institute Extending the Race Between Education and Technology, Autor, Goldin, Katz, 2020 The Future of Warehouse Work, UC Berkeley Labor Center Worker Voices: Technology and the Future for Workers, Molly Kinder, Amanda Lenhart, New America, 2019 The Future of work and its impact on Health, Blue Shield of California Foundation and the Institute for the Future, 2020  The Future of Jobs Report 2020, World Economic Forum (Automation projected to eliminate about 85 million jobs in the next five years—potentially displacing up to half of the United States workforce with no clear path for them to connect to the new jobs likely to be created by these technological changes) BLS fastest growing occupations 2020-2030 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices