3 ms·
We'll find new works. In the 1800s ~70% of the workers were employed in agriculture. Someone noticing the progress of technology would have predicted just like
by maverick_iceman 10y ago
We'll find new works. In the 1800s ~70% of the workers were employed in agriculture. Someone noticing the progress of technology would have predicted just like you. (In fact Keynes did make a similar prediction.) It didn't come true because they failed to see the evolution of new jobs like programmer, animation designer, cinematographer etc. Why this time is different?
- rincebrain 10y agoTwo things could make this different, depending on exactly what the prediction was. One would be that, in the 1800s, they would have been predicting _fewer_ entry-level jobs in a given field (e.g. replacing bunches of manual workers with machinery to allow one person to do the work), not _no_ entry-level jobs in said field. The other difference, here, is that the job shift you're discussing (except, arguably, for "programmer") is into jobs which require prior training to have any likelihood of getting a position. One additional problem - even assuming that new entry-level positions in other industries existed, that's going to be a huge loss of income for the families affected, and anything that causes that drastic a reduction of income across any significant population of people is going to have huge ripple effects.
- SturgeonsLaw 10y agoThe first wave of automation covered the use of our muscles, so jobs migrated to work that required the brain. Now that the brain's being automated, what do we have left to fall back on?
- niftich 10y agoOur looks.