Quote:Actually, the argument I make is the one you made here. Sure, some people are able to survive disruption and even thrive, but others fall by the wayside. As the pace of change continues to increase, the number in the second group will grow, because even capable people are not infinitely capable.
Do you honestly think the pace of change is greater today in the US than it was at the same time last saeculum? We went from horse-and-buggies to jetplanes and automobiles. And what of new jobs in the service sector? The extent to which automation allows one to do more with same, rather than the same with less. I have given actual examples, perhaps you might be willing to respond with something other than platitudes and statements of faith.
Quote:... and we still have places on earth that are primitive and need to be modernized. Others are held back by political or social systems that retard growth, but if we learned nothing else from the Chinese experience, transformation can be rapid.
In what way was this a response to me? I stated that it is perfectly possible to have both a higher level of automation and greater levels of manufacturing employment, and provided examples, and this is what you respond with? How does this affect the price of rice in China?
Quote:And yes, manufacturing jobs are disappearing everywhere.
You respond to criticism of the belief that automation is going to get rid of all jobs with an article about how people are continuing to find more and better jobs even in the face of it? Did you actually read it or just grab the first thing off of a Google search?
Quote:It's the worst job market for new lawyers ever, and a large part of that has to do with the work many young lawyers have always done in the past: legal research. Computers do it faster and better. Why pay some young lawyer six figures to it less well.
And they require those salaries to pay their exhorbitant debt incurred to pay for a legal education (mandated by law and what is in essence a guild) that still requires practical legal training at the end of it in order for them to work. Meanwhile, the majority of demand for legal services goes unfulfilled. This seems less of a problem of automation as it does a poorly designed training pipeline.
Quote:The health industry is one area of growth, but we Boomers are a huge part of the reason why. We'll die-off, and many of the jobs will die with us. Not surprising, the jobs with the best long term demand are ones that involve directly caring for the infirm like CNAs -- not a great paying job by any measure.
You're right. Just as you boomers were the first people to be young, you'll be the last ones to be old. What was I thinking?
Quote:The tilt in the job market will track AGW as a model. Greenhouse gases were insignificant until they weren't. Technology penetration will be similar. There is no need to eliminate all jobs, or even a large minority of them. All that has to happen is to make work less valuable by making the amount of work to be done less than the supply of labor needing work ... something that is already happening. That pushes the wage and salary structure lower, and that either lowers workforce penetration or it creates downward mobility. Neither is good. In fact, we don't have a good model for an economy operating that way.
Ah, the good old lump of labor fallacy! No new work will become possible with greater technology. Labor prices won't shift to compensate. Automation and mechanization will continue in a straight line without the least impact from, say, AGW or resource shortages. Everything will be exactly the way it is now, except more so.
Got it.
