> There is an unfortunate tendency to think about technology replacing jobs as temporary until the workforce re-adjust yet the increasing reality is structural

> There is an unfortunate tendency to think about technology replacing jobs as temporary until the workforce re-adjust yet the increasing reality is structural unemployment not just temporary. Yeah, I know. The thing you're forgetting is that unemployment denotes a percentage of the eligible workforce, which, in itself, is only a fraction of the total population. Before the industrial revolution, literally EVERYONE, save for infants and toddlers, had some sort of employment -- some daily task to assist their making ends meet. The long-term trend is extremely obviously one of monotonic decline of the number of jobs available per capita. I'm totally aware that the consequence of technology replacing jobs is structural unemployment. Yes, over time, there will be more unemployment. It is likely that we will adapt for this by changing the definition of the eligible workforce, and by supplying further social aid (e.g. basic income) to those who are not in the workforce. However, the problem with your argument is that you are putting the cart before the horse: you want basic income before you remove jobs. Instituting basic income while people still have jobs is politically well-nigh impossible. There actually must be a felt need for basic income, not just "once y'all have basic income we can start automating away your jobs". Would you have said, on the cusp of the industrial revolution, that nations should hold out on the technological progress until everyone is assured a new job and a decent quality of life? Maybe, but I think that's a bit idealistic. Innovation -- like all forms of change -- can be a bit rough as it sweeps through.