3 ms·

Oh definitely! I missed that one. That could be a solution. See, this is what I want. Have the conversation and the policy changes that come with the industry s

Oh definitely! I missed that one. That could be a solution. See, this is what I want. Have the conversation and the policy changes that come with the industry shifts. It only helps everyone.

Kalium 8y ago
In this particular case, the conversation you want happened over a century ago when economists figured out that automation tends to create (and enable the creation of) more jobs than it permanently removes. Economists figured out that the idea of the lump of labor is possessed of bountiful opportunities to come into greater alignment with observed reality. The whole industrial revolution involved a lot of people who shared your fears - that their jobs would be permanently removed by automation! And you know what? They were right! Their jobs were permanently removed by automation. It's just that the story didn't end there, and the jobs created and enabled by automation far outstripped the jobs removed. It might be worth considering that government intervention might not always be the solution. Choosing not to act is always an option, and is always worth considering. The first question should not be "How can we solve this problem with policy?", but instead should be "Should we solve this problem with policy?".
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  So we are back to square one. If automation makes whole populations jobless, then we should be ready to take care of them. If it doesn’t, we are good as we were. Therefore, if automation makes unemployment go up, those unemployed should have a plan waiting for them that makes sure they live above the poverty line.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    Are we back to square one? The plan so far is that history suggests pretty strongly that automation creates more jobs than it destroys. Actively choosing not to intervene is a plan, although it can easily be mistaken not having one.

3 ms·

Oh definitely! I missed that one. That could be a solution. See, this is what I want. Have the conversation and the policy changes that come with the industry s

by iscrewyou 8y ago

Oh definitely! I missed that one. That could be a solution. See, this is what I want. Have the conversation and the policy changes that come with the industry shifts. It only helps everyone.

Kalium 8y ago
In this particular case, the conversation you want happened over a century ago when economists figured out that automation tends to create (and enable the creation of) more jobs than it permanently removes. Economists figured out that the idea of the lump of labor is possessed of bountiful opportunities to come into greater alignment with observed reality. The whole industrial revolution involved a lot of people who shared your fears - that their jobs would be permanently removed by automation! And you know what? They were right! Their jobs were permanently removed by automation. It's just that the story didn't end there, and the jobs created and enabled by automation far outstripped the jobs removed. It might be worth considering that government intervention might not always be the solution. Choosing not to act is always an option, and is always worth considering. The first question should not be "How can we solve this problem with policy?", but instead should be "Should we solve this problem with policy?".
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  So we are back to square one. If automation makes whole populations jobless, then we should be ready to take care of them. If it doesn’t, we are good as we were. Therefore, if automation makes unemployment go up, those unemployed should have a plan waiting for them that makes sure they live above the poverty line.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    Are we back to square one? The plan so far is that history suggests pretty strongly that automation creates more jobs than it destroys. Actively choosing not to intervene is a plan, although it can easily be mistaken not having one.