4 ms·

The assumption that unemployment caused by innovation is only short term is based on the assumption that new jobs will be created which require (roughly) the sa

• ivankirigin 15y ago
  If you don't operate under the assumption that people will work to improve their skills and learn so as to become functional and contributing members of society, you're committing to a static society or complete dependence on the government. People need to start acting like a job isn't a right but something you earn. If you think the current disruption is meaningful, just wait 10 to 20 years for robots to replace almost all service jobs in a very short time
  • gnaritas 15y ago
    > you're committing to a static society You say that as if it's a given bad thing, it isn't; humans lived in virtually static societies for most of their existence; the current rate of change is simply too fast for most people and is itself not the norm. It's like we're trying to become the Morlocks and the Eloi.
    • ivankirigin 15y ago
      Let me know your opinion on static societies when you or someone you love gets diagnosed with a currently terminal disease. Or, on a grander scale, a static human race is doomed to extinction by the next large asteroid.
  • orky56 15y ago
    "a job isn't a right but something you earn" I definitely agree but when you are at a company who has employed you for a long time and have been doing your job well, then who's not to say that now unemployed person hasn't earned that job. The time spent at that job performing well could have been spent learning some new in-demand skill but think of the opportunity cost. Now when these people are unemployed, do we really think society has provided the motivation, resources, and most importantly, direction, to change their view on career and development. It's a very big step and I believe its naive to think that unemployment is an event actionable enough to make someone switch their mentality.
    • ivankirigin 15y ago
      I don't really put blame on individuals. I think they are socialized to make their poor decisions. I mainly blame our educational institutions and government for telling people for decades that they will be taken care of when down. It's a lie, but comes with a bonus of placating people.
  • rbarooah 15y ago
    I think this is pretty accurate, however there is a potential structural problem: entry level, or low level jobs in general don't pay people enough to invest time or resources in improving their skills - certainly not for longer term shifts in the economy. "Earning" a job, implies that people invest their own resources in preparing themselves for the future. I am vehemently in favor of that as a general way for society to operate. However, this vision requires that people have sufficient resources to make these investments. Given the increasing disparities of resource allocation that we're seeing, why should we assume that this is possible?
    • ivankirigin 15y ago
      In all of human history, it has never been easier than today to learn something new.
• irrelative 15y ago
  Sure, that economic theory doesn't take into account jobs with the same qualifications. But why should it? When assembly line production began being automated by robotics, I'm sure there were stories about how the riveters and welders would never be able to work again. We're still better off because of that automation though - goods can be produced more efficiently and at higher quality. We can't predict the future, but every previous disruptive technological innovation has resulted in society being richer. It would be quite the shock if the result of the most recent one somehow left us poorer -- something really worth reporting on -- but I don't believe it.
  • RuadhanMc 15y ago
    Society as a whole gets richer, but within those confines the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer. Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher and cheap credit means that they can live beyond their means and a deeper whole for themselves, while temporarily giving themselves the impression that they have money to spend. Silicon Valley is producing these great billion dollar companies, but the companies themselves are only hiring a small fraction of the employees that similarly sized (market cap) companies have in the past. That is a bit of a problem. It means that incredible wealth is concentrated in one place, but without the filter down value that has occurred in the past. These companies still have immense value to society, but the value as far as numbers of people employed is decreasing dramatically and that is a major concern.
    • anamax 15y ago
      > Society as a whole gets richer, but within those confines the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer. But, do they get poorer? > Granted the poor today (I assume) have a higher quality of life than they did 50 years ago, Good - they're getting richer. But, why does the sentence continue. > but their expectations for life are also (probably) higher and cheap credit means that they can live beyond their means and a deeper whole for themselves, while temporarily giving themselves the impression that they have money to spend. Huh? The fact that US poor can be better off than ever before has no connection to easy credit. In fact, even with the easy credit and the resulting bankruptcy, they're better off now than past poor. Note that I'm not arguing for stupid credit policies (pushed mostly by govt). I'm pointing out that they have nothing to do with whether the poor are better off now. Oh, and most poor people didn't get into the cheap credit problem because they didn't even qualify under the stupid standards. However, the efforts to prop up folks who bought what they can't afford have kept folks who saved out of those houses. It's unclear why that's a good thing. For the good of society, banks need to lose money on stupid loans.