Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
Related: Robots are also not taking all of the jobs. If they were, productivity growth would be accelerating, rather than sluggish/declining.
|
I'm not going to dig into how that argument may be dismantled. We can start with attacks on how productivity is calculated, assess whether you're missing the most important measure (wage stagnation), look into the distribution across various industries to determine if a few outliers aren't skewing the #s, or get into whether we're not far along enough in the process to assess the impact.
I'm not going to google the 50 or 60 different studies one can locate knocking the pilings out of that Brookings study. We both know they're there, and we both know, no matter what I cite, you're married to the notion that tech will create as much of not more than it eliminates. We can agree to disagree on that.
I also don't want to have the dumb argument where I say, "But you're discussing job creation over decades. What about all the people eliminated in the interim?" (I do agree that 100 years from now, we'll either have: (1) a ton of new jobs created by tech; (2) Keynes' leisure society with a 15 hr work week; or, (3) a "useless" class of people kept alive by transfer payments.) That's the moronic back and forth where you tell me education and retraining will address the problem and I remind you there is no retraining for a middle aged worker of low to moderate skill rendered obsolete by tech. It's the most tedious of discussions.
Threaded Mode