3 ms·

What you're describing is what's behind (in part) the growth in the economy; but nothing you said has anything to do with what the parent comment was talking ab

What you're describing is what's behind (in part) the growth in the economy; but nothing you said has anything to do with what the parent comment was talking about, which is that people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth. This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. Almost every technological advance has had the same effect (pretty much by definition: if a tool is more effective at a job then less humans are necessary/cost-effective for the job). In modern history though, the (obvious) response has been to educate the population to leverage the skills that humans are still better at (c.f. the US gov't literacy drive and the post-WWII GI bill, both of which smoothed the path to an increasingly white-collar labor force). Sometimes this also includes providing a soft-landing (in the social welfare sense) for those who are old enough that it's unlikely they'll be able to easily switch out of their obsoleted industry, but this is less common.

lucb1e 12y ago
> people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth. Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole, plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  > Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. This discussion isn't as simple as "this is good and this is bad" in black-and-white terms. We're talking specifically about the fact that poverty rates and growth aren't tightly coupled, and I was explaining why. > plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed. This is also what I said (the "soft landing"). Though UI (unemployment insurance) lasts a year or two, so you're sorely mistaken if you think that UI per se functions as a substitute for a social welfare system.

lucb1e 12y ago

> people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth. Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole, plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed.

wutbrodo 12y ago
> Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. This discussion isn't as simple as "this is good and this is bad" in black-and-white terms. We're talking specifically about the fact that poverty rates and growth aren't tightly coupled, and I was explaining why. > plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed. This is also what I said (the "soft landing"). Though UI (unemployment insurance) lasts a year or two, so you're sorely mistaken if you think that UI per se functions as a substitute for a social welfare system.