...because in a macro sense what used to be spent on book binding is being spent on something else. Maybe it created a thousand jobs at print shops (fo

...because in a macro sense what used to be spent on book binding is being spent on something else. Maybe it created a thousand jobs at print shops (for example). This assumes that there will always be a "something else". Something else for people to work at, something else for banks to invest in. My question is, what guarantees the appearance of this "something else"? Looking at past examples, these new jobs seem to come from advancements in technology that both improved human lives (and thus were in high demand) and also required human labor to operate (and thus provided jobs). For example, we no longer need nearly as many farmers, but these people have all been freed up to pilot commercial airplanes, program computers, repair cars, operate print shops, etc. But what if these trends don't hold up? What if the value-producing technological advancements of the future continue to eliminate jobs, but require radically less human labor to operate? My best guess is that people will be pushed into less technology-driven and more service-driven pursuits. Instead of print technologies eliminating book binders but providing print shop jobs, we will be eliminating print shop jobs and getting — I don't know — more masseuses, therapists, cleaners, gardeners, personal chefs, etc? Basically the service economy we see emerging now — people performing what were previously considered "luxury tasks" for other people. I suppose I've talked myself out of some of my former skepticism. We don't need new jobs, because we have plenty of "old" ways to provide value that become more broadly affordable as workers are freed up to do them. However, if this leads to a society in which the masses perform menial tasks for the rich who fill a limited number of high leverage technological positions, that could cause tremendous cultural problems.