3 ms·

I'm sorry, but the horses example is really terrible. Technological disruption is not new. It's been around forever. If your theory stands true, then how come

I'm sorry, but the horses example is really terrible. Technological disruption is not new. It's been around forever. If your theory stands true, then how come that overall, the global economy is growing? Doesn't it mean that we've created more jobs that we've destroyed? What about the other important element no one seems to care about in this conversation: the jobs created - very often - require a higher level of skills and specialization.

drewcrawford 10y ago
> If your theory stands true, then how come that overall, the global economy is growing? Doesn't it mean that we've created more jobs that we've destroyed? The number of jobs does not correlate to GDP growth [0]. So whether "the economy is growing" is not terribly related to whether jobs are being created. This is somewhat puzzling under Adam-Smith-Wealth-of-Nations ideas about economics, but it's an empirical fact. > Technological disruption is not new. It's been around forever. You seem to be misunderstanding the argument; I'm not arguing for something new. I'm arguing that negative effects of technological shock are well-attested in the historical record: you can look back at historical data and plainly see them. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/business/economy/us-growth-and-employment-data-tell-different-stories.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/business/economy/us-growth...