> If humans are being replaced with computers, then there will be need for fewer managers, supervisors etc. This would cause a decline in demand for people with

> If humans are being replaced with computers, then there will be need for fewer managers, supervisors etc. This would cause a decline in demand for people with "human skills" also. Here's my answer to this paradox. The humans vs machines is just another "good old boys club". Of course humans don't want to relinquish control and be managed by machines, they are not silly. So they create another layer of "soft skills" which prevents from machines (or people who understand them) taking over. Take a high-frequency trading company as an analog. The job is done by computers and technicians running them. Still, the CEO and investors into this are probably better paid than those technicians, and make all the important decisions. (In fact, today you could probably create a completely self-managed HFT company that would just put all the profit into hiring more technicians who manage its algorithms.) And I think this was always the case in human history (although not against machines, just against other social groups); and many technical people here seem to be in denial of this reality. What we can do though is to attempt to change this, but it will require political, not technological, solutions (that is people skills).