A lot of people are putting forth this notion that the market just isn't offering enough compensation for the jobs, and that's why they're not being filled. Th

A lot of people are putting forth this notion that the market just isn't offering enough compensation for the jobs, and that's why they're not being filled. That may be true. It probably is true. But here's something else to consider: the alternative of not working, especially for people who may do these particular jobs, is fairly competitive. With enough welfare, government assistance, and cheap easy-to-access entertainment, getting a job looks worse and worse (less necessary), so would-be employees won't bother as much at current market rates. Companies will therefore need to offer higher and higher wages for these jobs to fill them. The same story has been unfolding in China with regards to manufacturing: these "$2/hour" jobs which seem terrible were actually amazing prospects for a half billion rural inhabitants, who were able to move to the city, work and save up money, and provide more for their families than they ever could. But once those families have higher standards of living, the next generation (their kids) don't need to take these jobs. They could, and they would still make some money, but they don't need to, so they'd rather go to school for the hopes of something better (an office job with AC), or just not work, because saving up marginally more money when you already have most of your needs met on your smartphone and through your parents just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This is the psychology: my family has some stability, I don't need to work like they did. I can aim for something better. This is not a moral judgement - sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. On the whole it's a good thing. So what's going to happen in either case is automation through technological progress. These jobs will disappear as companies invest in their destruction. Why not try out this startup's experimental self-driving truck, rather than raise my total truck driver comp. package to $90K? Obviously a ton of reasons for most companies. But the economic pros/cons will shift towards the technology faster and faster. And then what for the people who need these kind of jobs, what happens when they disappear? In the West, it seems as if we're moving to some kind of income redistribution scheme, based on taxing the owners and producers of the technology. So essentially: increase the welfare. This seems like a relatively stable short-term solution. But what happens when you're left with a large underclass of unemployed people, and a small upper-class of producers? It's not good, and not long-term stable. Look up the Gini Coefficient, one of the most fundamental social science discoveries, and see for yourself: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequ... All the taxing and redistribution in the world isn't going to help this. We're a global economy now, so unless you trap the rich in one area, they're going to move eventually. In summary - I see big problems ahead the next few decades relating to these issues, and I don't see a good long-term solution just yet.