10 ms·

I don't feel like I'm reaching at all. I feel like I'm describing a pretty general truth. Job A gets replaced by Automation 1.0. Automation 1.0 required the

by MWil 13y ago

I don't feel like I'm reaching at all. I feel like I'm describing a pretty general truth. Job A gets replaced by Automation 1.0. Automation 1.0 required the labor of Jobs B, C, and D to become a reality. Now, not only can Jobs B, C, and D become greatly automated but Automation A is going to eventually lead to Automation 2.0 which led to Jobs E, F, and G being created. Within one generation of the death of Job A, six other jobs were created. You're arguing that specialization isn't opened up but someone specialized in something enough (robotics, AI, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, something) to lead to the automation in the first place.

ThomPete 13y ago
That's not a general truth at all. Thats the point. There is no data that shows that new jobs are created to replace those lost by automation. So not it's not a general truth at all.
- MWil 13y ago
  How in the world did the automation become a reality without at least one new job having come into creation? Replacement is at least guaranteed (not obviously analogous by hours or skills required). The question is can we say that more now jobs exist (although they might not need filling or lead to the displaced workers finding new work).
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    Because at the same time new markets where liberalized. In fact it was a major part of the US doctrine since second world war. To open up new markets for American companies which they have done very successfully. You could have jobs for everyone if you just gave them 50 cent an hour so no that is not question as it's missing the point. I find the continued apologetic nature of your and some others argument amazing. Technology does not create more jobs than it destroys it help create new markets. But at the same time it removes jobs from the middle class and leaves only either high tech jobs or Wallmart like jobs in the US (and europe) If you think that is a sustainable model and proves that the market works just fine I think you are mistaken.

by MWil 13y ago

ThomPete 13y ago

That's not a general truth at all. Thats the point. There is no data that shows that new jobs are created to replace those lost by automation. So not it's not a general truth at all.

MWil 13y ago
How in the world did the automation become a reality without at least one new job having come into creation? Replacement is at least guaranteed (not obviously analogous by hours or skills required). The question is can we say that more now jobs exist (although they might not need filling or lead to the displaced workers finding new work).
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Because at the same time new markets where liberalized. In fact it was a major part of the US doctrine since second world war. To open up new markets for American companies which they have done very successfully. You could have jobs for everyone if you just gave them 50 cent an hour so no that is not question as it's missing the point. I find the continued apologetic nature of your and some others argument amazing. Technology does not create more jobs than it destroys it help create new markets. But at the same time it removes jobs from the middle class and leaves only either high tech jobs or Wallmart like jobs in the US (and europe) If you think that is a sustainable model and proves that the market works just fine I think you are mistaken.