>Your argument about candle-makers is also a straw man: thus far through our history, we've been able to replace each declining low-skill industry with the asce

>Your argument about candle-makers is also a straw man: thus far through our history, we've been able to replace each declining low-skill industry with the ascendancy of another equally low-skill industry (argiculture to factory labor, factory labor to "service" work, etc.) But that era appears to be coming to an end. In a world where there are no jobs for people in the bottom X% of intelligence, we don't automatically get more innovation -- we just get structurally unemployed people. Not a straw man at all. Low Skill Industry will just change its definition. Maybe computer programming becomes a "low-skill", commoditized field. Who knows? It will be probably be something we haven't even thought about yet. It's funny you ask someone to "prove it". You are also restating a popular theory, but your theory has failed when we look at economic history. >But that era appears to be coming to an end. That's news to me. Before the recession, there were more jobs being created than at any point in history.