I'm still a bit mystified by the people who believe that automation can, or will, destroy jobs. It takes a very weird view of the economy to see it as fundamentally static, fixed in a given form that can't be changed other than who or what does the work that's already been done. In nearly every corner of the economy there is an infinite amount of work that needs to be done, but of course not all of it can be done so only some of the available work actually gets done. But if you automate some of that work it's not like the undone work goes away, it's not like people won't pay good money to do that undone work.
I'm still a bit mystified by the people who believe that automation can, or will, destroy jobs.
There are certainly huge local issues that happen when you shut, say, a steel plant or coal mine. We know that this happens. What would happen if we were to do the same thing to a whole tranche of jobs all at once?
Perhaps you're talking on much longer scales, but you shouldn't ignore the shorter term (which is still long in human scales, it's not like these things sort themselves out after a couple of weeks).
But if you automate some of that work it's not like the undone work goes away, it's not like people won't pay good money to do that undone work.
If they'd pay more for that undone work than the work that's being done, why don't people shift jobs?
This is a great insight:
"In nearly every corner of the economy there is an infinite amount of work that needs to be done"
I agree with you but i can understand how people can think differently. They are basing their ideas on what they see in front of them. And they don't see how it worked out before and they don't see all the additional work that can be done. I think it takes an imagination to understand that new jobs will form.
Comments
I'm still a bit mystified by the people who believe that automation can, or will, destroy jobs. It takes a very weird view of the economy to see it as fundamentally static, fixed in a given form that can't be changed other than who or what does the work that's already been done. In nearly every corner of the economy there is an infinite amount of work that needs to be done, but of course not all of it can be done so only some of the available work actually gets done. But if you automate some of that work it's not like the undone work goes away, it's not like people won't pay good money to do that undone work.
There are certainly huge local issues that happen when you shut, say, a steel plant or coal mine. We know that this happens. What would happen if we were to do the same thing to a whole tranche of jobs all at once?
Perhaps you're talking on much longer scales, but you shouldn't ignore the shorter term (which is still long in human scales, it's not like these things sort themselves out after a couple of weeks).
If they'd pay more for that undone work than the work that's being done, why don't people shift jobs?
This is a great insight: "In nearly every corner of the economy there is an infinite amount of work that needs to be done"
I agree with you but i can understand how people can think differently. They are basing their ideas on what they see in front of them. And they don't see how it worked out before and they don't see all the additional work that can be done. I think it takes an imagination to understand that new jobs will form.