[brycehamrick]

I'm not a Yang supporter but this article is total garbage. Slate has been very disappointing lately.

The key takeaway seems to be while Yang says automation has displaced jobs there's a lack of academic consensus on the weight placed between trade policy and technology improvements; but everyone agrees both have had a significant effect.

Ok... so we shouldn't be coming up with a plan for how to address economic changes due to technology based on "it's historic effect has possibly been outweighed by other factors" even though we all agree it will continue to have an effect in the future?

Also just want to point out that anyone using the reported federal unemployment rate as a measure of overall employment health has already lost all credibility to write on the topic.

[vinayan3]

I’ll go a bit further. The article was just rambling. The article title is super click baity and the substance of the article doesn’t support it. They cited a bunch of studies to try to show that the job losses can be attributed to many things.

Why not compile the various studies and make an infographic showing the different ideas out there? It might be much easier to understand.

[fullshark]

Agreed, there are some good points in the piece, but the headline and concluding paragraph are not supported by the body.

[mikeg8]

Curious as to what you identified as a good point? I didn’t really see any to be honest

[fullshark]

I think Yang has been overstating automation’s impact, in part because that’s necessary for political messaging. Sounds like the Ball State study has some issues.