3 ms·
As farmers' jobs were safe because farmers can use farming tools. These arguments don't track even vaguely. You are doing the equivalent of analyzing the futur
by Veedrac 4y ago
As farmers' jobs were safe because farmers can use farming tools.
These arguments don't track even vaguely. You are doing the equivalent of analyzing the future of solar power by assuming solar will cost the same in 10 years as it does today, and that each new watt of solar is matched 1:1 with new units of demand. Neither of these are sensible.
It may be that ML code tools never displace many people, or even that they supercharge demand, but you don't get to justified conclusions by assuming the future is just the present but with a bigger UNIX timestamp.
- all2 4y agoIndustrialization has made farming tools incredibly complex, so I believe the statement "farmers' jobs were safe because farmers can use farming tools" is correct. You still need a farmer to farm, but you now need less manpower to farm. The specialist is secure while the untrained laborer is at risk.
- fijiaarone 4y agoAnd yet, despite there being more complex machinery in farming there is also much more untrained labor. People just don’t notice it because the untrained labor (millions of people) that plant and harvest are an underclass that does not speak their language or associate with them.