The problem is one of perspective, and looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. We want jobs replaced by technology. That is, after all, one of the

The problem is one of perspective, and looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. We want jobs replaced by technology. That is, after all, one of the reasons we're all in this technology game. It is what drives forward productivity and leads to an improved standard of living. The issue is seeing the private sector as the creator of jobs. It is not. It creates jobs only as a side effect of investing capital. If a capitalist can get the entire job done by machine, they will do - unless human labour is very, very cheap. So to get the investment effect we need labour to be expensive. And that means that the private sector isn't the place to look for jobs in the long term. The public sector has to create them so there are always more jobs that there are people: https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/running-a-modern-money-economy-ada9682a5fb9 https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/running-a-modern-mon... Then the private sector has to compete for labour, and will choose to invest to eliminate jobs more often than not. The issue was best described by Kalecki in the 1940s. "It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system." http://web.archive.org/web/20170202134920/http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kalecki220510.html http://web.archive.org/web/20170202134920/http://mrzine.mont...