[calafrax]

> automation is eradicating our jobs. But — unlike in the past — new ones aren’t being created to replace them

He presents no evidence to support this claim, and it is most likely false.

If you remove resources from some sector, and people become unemployed, but total resources were increased due to improved efficiency then those displaced people will more than likely figure out how to get some of those resources rather than starving to death.

[DiThi]

Your argument is as speculative if not more. Resources are not all equal. The ex driver or ex cashier is not going to starve to death. But it's not getting the same salary, if any at all.

[calafrax]

My argument is speculative except that technological progress has always led to increasing generalized prosperity in the past.

The adjustment periods have been on the scale of generations though so you can definitely have localized decreases in well being for large segments of the population due to technological change.

[DiThi]

> has always led to increasing generalized prosperity in the past

Because people always had something else to do. But what will happen when machines can do pretty much everything? That never happened in history before.

[calafrax]

This is a kind of "end of history" argument that assumes no further advances can happen. I just don't buy it.

We will invent new things to do. Or, god forbid, maybe just spend some time relaxing and enjoying life instead of working ourselves to death.

[DiThi]

> that assumes no further advances can happen

...by humans.

> We will invent new things to do. Or, god forbid, maybe just spend some time relaxing and enjoying life instead of working ourselves to death.

With some luck we'll be good pets.