[InclinedPlane]

Sigh. It doesn't matter. People have this bizarre conception of the economy as an exact lock-fit between jobs and work that needs doing, and they have a hard time imagining changes to that fit, even though throughout human history there has been constant change.

In truth there is a nearly infinite amount of work that needs doing. We just get by with most of the work not being done. Just go back in time and think about all the work that wasn't being done before various jobs existed. There used to be a time before the video games industry existed, there was a time before the movie industry existed, there was a time before people could support themselves as authors or journalists or watch-makers.

Are we going to live in some sort of world where there's a pool of unused labor and people just sit around thinking "whelp, it's a shame there's literally nothing, no possible thing, for them to do, oh well"? Of course not, that's a fantasy that's based on a complete misperception of economics. No matter how much we automate there will always be work for people to do. The more important question is how equitably they'll be compensated for that work and whether or not our education system is adequate for the world as it exists.

[amatic]

That is all true. Still, try pointing that out to truck drivers (for example) when they start getting laid off because the company can't handle the automated competition. Economy-wide, there will always be jobs for people to do, it is the large number of individual workers who will be scared for their particular jobs.

[InclinedPlane]

This is true, and very important. Volatility in jobs can potentially put those at the bottom at an increased disadvantage, while consolidating the advantages of those who are already well off. Partly this is because people are "falling down" the experience ladder when starting a new career and their lack of economic buffer means they also can't negotiate decent wages. And too, new industries means that the hard won organizations (like labor unions) and established norms in pay and working conditions are no longer present, putting folks at another disadvantage.

Which has almost certainly been a factor in what's been happening to labor since the 1980s, who have seen their wages remain stagnant and job security fall through the floor (especially for those under 30) while the economy and productivity continues to grow and grow. This is, I would say, fairly obviously a bad thing, and requires a lot of rethink in order to makeup for the extreme power imbalances and iniquities at play, but very little of substance has been done about it so far.

[Udik]

The problem is not in the amount of job to be done. The problem is the cost of replacing a human being with a machine. Until the cost is higher than the worker's salary, that worker is fine. When it becomes lower, there is no job for him any more. So far we've always been in a situation where for any job that could be done by a machine, infinite more would only be doable by a real human. But we'll quickly reach the point where there will be NO jobs that can't be done by a machine for cheaper. On the other hand, if information technology keeps evolving much faster than robotics, the kast jobs to actually disappear will be the low qualification manual jobs. Note that truck driving is an intellectual job, not a manual one.

[cousin_it]

Sure, there will always be work for Bob to do. Clean the streets, fight crime, cure cancer, write bestselling novels. But there won't always be someone willing to pay Bob for that work, because there might be more effective options that don't involve hiring Bob. If you think Bob will always have a job due to some law of economics, I'd like to see that law spelled out. (Comparative advantage doesn't fit the bill, because it relies on the unrealistic assumption that capital is immobile.)

[Grishnakh]

>No matter how much we automate there will always be work for people to do. The more important question is how equitably they'll be compensated for that work and whether or not our education system is adequate for the world as it exists.

And if it isn't, then those people who've been automated out of a job will find something to do, such as crime.

[Zigurd]

I think I finally get why libertarians have a boner, so to speak, for legalizing prostitution. That's the ultimate expression of adding elasticity to the labor market, and vastly more people could be participating in that market than do now. It makes such claims about there being infinite work to do ever so much more believable.

[gozur88]

No, you don't "get" it. Libertarians just don't think it's the state's place to decide the conditions under which consenting adults have sex.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Forcing people to relate exclusively under free market rules is very much deciding the conditions under which consenting adults have sex.

[gozur88]

The absence of government regulation is not the same thing as "forcing" anything.