It's quite common for modern governments to identify industries or regions which are heading towards economic decline and put in place measures to ensure the de

It's quite common for modern governments to identify industries or regions which are heading towards economic decline and put in place measures to ensure the decline happens in a gradual, controlled way. This reduces a whole host of associated social problems that tend to accompany economic decline. I think it's a good thing, and I think it's probably better economically than the alternative. > What matters is that society as a whole was better after every automation. If your family's wealth had historically sat somewhere around the median in your society and then a major change occurred which caused your family's wealth to drop to the bottom 20% in your society, wouldn't you be angry about that? I would be. And I wouldn't be placated by assurances that society as a whole will be better off. Not that I think demanding a halt to technological progress is a rational response (I've mentioned elsewhere I don't think that's really possible to achieve, even if we wanted to), but I understand why some people might respond that way. The people "throwing a hissy fit" are, in my opinion, right about the problem but wrong about the solution (which is often the case). Automation rapidly making a large number of people redundant is an economic shock which can be softened via sensible intervention.