I'm sympathetic to the 'not this time' argument but I don't think it has to do with the scale of technical disruption. At the beginning of the 20th century near

I'm sympathetic to the 'not this time' argument but I don't think it has to do with the scale of technical disruption. At the beginning of the 20th century nearly half the labor force was in agriculture; now it's somewhere between 1-2%. In terms of magnitude of displacement, I don't think what we are seeing now, or anticipate seeing in the next decade is of a different kind than what we saw with the mechanization of agriculture. What concerns me is: 1) The rate at which these disruptions are occurring, and 2) The ability for displaced labor to find other opportunities in the economy. The shift from agriculture to manufacturing took place over decades and didn't require significant retraining. The shifts we are seeing now cut across a wide swath of 'unskilled' labor which is appears to be in a general decline. (I recommend checking out EconTalk episodes with David Autor and Erik Hurst: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/econtalk/id135066958?mt=2 https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/econtalk/id135066958?mt=...)