> " history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now"
Yes, and we've never suitably addressed the problem of displaced labor.
You're mistaking aggregate, macro-scale changes in the economy for micro-scale effects on people.
Bob the factory worker loses his job because of automation, the economy at the same time creates new jobs in other categories. From an aggregate scale the economy is still humming along - a contraction of labor demand on one side is offset by an expansion in labor demand on another side.
But what about Bob? Is Bob qualified to take one of these newly created jobs? How will he gain the qualifications to work this new job? Are these new jobs in Bob's geographic area, or does Bob have the financial means to move to new job centers to pursue work?
This is the problem - you've mistaken "there are new jobs" for "there are new jobs for the displaced workers". The assumption that there is even much of an intersection between these two things is pure supposition - supposition that gets trotted around a lot because we don't like to think about the notion that maybe Bob - who has 30-40 years left on his lifespan - may simply be chronically unemployed or underemployed for the entire rest of it.
In reality there are going to be millions - if not tens of millions - like Bob, who have lost their jobs and are unable to retrain into a field that the economy has created. Others will take those new jobs, but Bob and his cohort are just plain fucked. The invention of new job categories does not remove the reality that Bob, and millions of others like him, are permanently out of work.
Yes, and we've never suitably addressed the problem of displaced labor.
You're mistaking aggregate, macro-scale changes in the economy for micro-scale effects on people.
Bob the factory worker loses his job because of automation, the economy at the same time creates new jobs in other categories. From an aggregate scale the economy is still humming along - a contraction of labor demand on one side is offset by an expansion in labor demand on another side.
But what about Bob? Is Bob qualified to take one of these newly created jobs? How will he gain the qualifications to work this new job? Are these new jobs in Bob's geographic area, or does Bob have the financial means to move to new job centers to pursue work?
This is the problem - you've mistaken "there are new jobs" for "there are new jobs for the displaced workers". The assumption that there is even much of an intersection between these two things is pure supposition - supposition that gets trotted around a lot because we don't like to think about the notion that maybe Bob - who has 30-40 years left on his lifespan - may simply be chronically unemployed or underemployed for the entire rest of it.
In reality there are going to be millions - if not tens of millions - like Bob, who have lost their jobs and are unable to retrain into a field that the economy has created. Others will take those new jobs, but Bob and his cohort are just plain fucked. The invention of new job categories does not remove the reality that Bob, and millions of others like him, are permanently out of work.