3 ms·

> might need to happen as we remove more and more jobs. > if we plan to automate everything we possibly can that has to eventually be false These are forms of

> might need to happen as we remove more and more jobs. > if we plan to automate everything we possibly can that has to eventually be false These are forms of the lump of labour fallacy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_jobs_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_jobs_fallacy). Automation has been happening since the industrial revolution (or the stone age, depending on how one sees it). If jobs were only removed, humanity would have been jobless long ago. People surely thought exactly the same thoughs a few centuries ago.

ehnto 4y ago
We're already seeing a blight of pointless jobs existing, does this just mean we all end up working pointless jobs instead of enjoying the fruits of our automation?
- pizza234 4y ago
  On the whole timescale, the same principle applies. Even if we define the start automation as the industrial revolution, if automation would (mostly) remove "interesting" jobs and compensate with "pointless" jobs, by now, all the jobs would be "pointless"; but they very evidently aren't. The problem is, as I wrote, that some people think we're a special period in history (most of the times, based on an ambiguos interpretation of the term "robot"), while there have been significant revolutions for a long time (possibly, forever). There's nothing different under the sun (on the whole timescale).
hiAndrewQuinn 4y ago
OP's statement is more precisely framed that jobs are on-net removed, not that jobs are only removed, which is a little harder to argue against. But not much. What I think would be an economically sound case is an argument that Ricardian comparative advantage breaks down at the extremes. A robot that can do everything twice as good as you will still benefit from trade; a robot that can do everything a thousand times as good as you might just view you as atoms it could use better in a different configuration.

ehnto 4y ago

We're already seeing a blight of pointless jobs existing, does this just mean we all end up working pointless jobs instead of enjoying the fruits of our automation?

pizza234 4y ago
On the whole timescale, the same principle applies. Even if we define the start automation as the industrial revolution, if automation would (mostly) remove "interesting" jobs and compensate with "pointless" jobs, by now, all the jobs would be "pointless"; but they very evidently aren't. The problem is, as I wrote, that some people think we're a special period in history (most of the times, based on an ambiguos interpretation of the term "robot"), while there have been significant revolutions for a long time (possibly, forever). There's nothing different under the sun (on the whole timescale).

hiAndrewQuinn 4y ago

OP's statement is more precisely framed that jobs are on-net removed, not that jobs are only removed, which is a little harder to argue against. But not much. What I think would be an economically sound case is an argument that Ricardian comparative advantage breaks down at the extremes. A robot that can do everything twice as good as you will still benefit from trade; a robot that can do everything a thousand times as good as you might just view you as atoms it could use better in a different configuration.