←back to thread

440 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.252s | source
Show context
kerblang ◴[] No.45057750[source]
High interest rates + tariff terror -> less investment -> less jobs

But let's blame AI

replies(19): >>45057802 #>>45057835 #>>45057896 #>>45058019 #>>45058030 #>>45058059 #>>45058070 #>>45058100 #>>45058231 #>>45058339 #>>45058429 #>>45058459 #>>45058497 #>>45058512 #>>45058575 #>>45058578 #>>45058645 #>>45058669 #>>45059576 #
jameslk ◴[] No.45058070[source]
Since this article is about AI, and since this comment seems rather low effort compared to the Stanford study, I went ahead and used low effort to analyze the report compare it to this comment. Here's my low effort AI response:

> Prompt: Attached is a paper. Below is an argument made against it. Is there anything in the paper that addresses the argument?: High interest rates + tariff terror -> less investment -> less jobs

> High rates/firm shocks: They add firm–time fixed effects that absorb broad firm shocks (like interest-rate changes), and the within-firm drop for 22–25-year-olds in AI-exposed roles remains.

> “Less investment” story: They note the 2022 §174 R&D amortization change and show the pattern persists even after excluding computer occupations and information-sector firms.

> Other non-AI explanations: The decline shows up in both teleworkable and non-teleworkable jobs and isn’t explained by pandemic-era education issues.

> Tariffs: Tariffs aren’t analyzed directly; broad tariff impacts would be soaked up by the firm–time controls, but a tariff-specific, task-level channel isn’t separately tested.

replies(1): >>45058159 #
1. blharr ◴[] No.45058159[source]
Fitting, since it came up with unrelated information (the R&D tax thing) and the 3rd bullet point. Also started talking about tariffs as if it had addressed them, then notes that it doesn't address them.