3 ms·
Explained in comment above: the prediction contains contradictions. It may not be an option for everyone to make a "more creative skilled task" as it usually i
by oliveira12345 11y ago
Explained in comment above: the prediction contains contradictions.
It may not be an option for everyone to make a "more creative skilled task" as it usually implies an extensive education including university and nowadays even a master (or more)... So even when people are willing to take another higher-skilled-career, that may not be an option for example for 40+ with kids... (no time to do it)
> Which option do you think is more likely?
We can look at poorer countries and see that necessity forces people to survive by whatever means exist. When they can they work. When there is no work, people have to resort to illegal means of survival, leading to eventual political instability and well, sometimes war... nothing good.
- hellameta 11y agoI agree with your points. Yes, the current generation of displaced workers will be in trouble and yes if the changes are quick the result won't be pretty (re: illegal means of survival). Despite this history also shows that the long run is likely to go the way I proposed(?). I guess the real difference is that my approach is too macro. Edit: Also, what about the opposite force? You can't displace workers and expect them to still consume as they did before. So regardless of how good technology gets I find it hard to reason that it should displace people at apocalyptic rate. If you put these workers in too tough of a position too quickly, they won't buy the very products they used to make. So entire industries themselves are restrained - otherwise everyone loses, including the industries that would supposedly gain. Sorry if I worded this poorly.