2 ms·

> 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 & Ha

> 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 ago
The 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 ago
same 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

ska 7y ago

The 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 ago

same 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