4 ms·
"Similarly, as tasks are automated in the modern economy (such as manufacturing tasks) workers will shift their time into other tasks like the growing service e
by neilwilson 7y ago
"Similarly, as tasks are automated in the modern economy (such as manufacturing tasks) workers will shift their time into other tasks like the growing service economy"
I like to call this the "lump of labour fallacy fallacy". It falls down because complete fungibility isn't actually a thing. You can't turn a dumpster diver into a brain surgeon, no matter how many hours of training you apply. As tasks are automated new jobs and tasks are created generally at a higher skill and intelligence level.
This excludes an increasing fraction of the workforce all of whom still need something to do of service to others for their own mental wellbeing as well as to fulfil the social contract requirement of reciprocity.
- SubiculumCode 7y agoExactly. New jobs will appear, but they won't be jobs that most of the displaced workers can get, or reasonably be expected to get. Do we leave them on the wayside, or do we treat humans with dignity, and realize that life is more than work, that unemployment is not always a problem, it can be the solution.
- VHRanger 7y ago> It falls down because complete fungibility isn't actually a thing. Agreed. Studies on those who lost their jobs in the manufacturing towns (Autor, Dorn & Hansen 2016, linked in the article) shows that losing your job to automation is a harrowing experience. The jobs reallocate over time but it's a bumpy process that can ruin the lives of those affected. > As tasks are automated new jobs and tasks are created generally at a higher skill and intelligence level. Not really. Automation tends to hollow out middle skill jobs, leaving high skill and low skill jobs available. This increases inequality.
- ska 7y agoThe jobs reallocate over time but it's a bumpy process that can ruin the lives of those affected. This is why broadly speaking the historical Luddite's were right, from their own perspective. It may the best thing to do for an overall economy, but pretending people won't get screwed over in the process isn't doing anyone favors. Not addressing this fundamentally as a matter of policy is a choice. I'm not saying it is the wrong choice, just that being transparent about what that means would seem to be the best course.
- chii 7y ago> being transparent being transparent means the admission that public policy has failed the vulnerable and those in need. I dont believe this problem will ever be "admitted to" - and it's more likely that the gov't will let it "blow over" (read, let those who got automated out of a life to fend for themselves, and eventually they either die/find new opportunities on their own, or the family slack picks them up).
- somurzakov 7y agosame things happens on stock markets - shrinking number of mid-cap (and overall number of) companies,and growing influence of the largest corporations leads to inequality of stock markets. few winners, much more losers. as mediocre companies go bankrupt, people who cannot catch up to changing job market leave job market as well, or remain underemployed & overworked on several low-paying jobs
- theFeller00 7y agoWow, a growing service economy! That sure sounds exciting and not extremely depressing! Thank you technology! Thank you globalists!