[kstenerud]

"Yes, efficiency kills (old, existing) jobs, but that gives new leverage to expand production beyond what it was before."

This is moving beyond the original point, but since we're here...

When increased efficiency kills jobs, the now jobless need to move onto some other form of employment. We saw this happen in migrations from farming to factory jobs, and now from factory jobs to service jobs. That area is safe for now since it's still hard to increase efficiency in services such as grooming, food preparation, entertainment, driving, and yard trimmers, compared with industrial production.

So there's still a certain stability in the current system that is not disrupted by emerging efficiencies, but that won't last forever. Eventually, even the services industry will become efficient, at which point the trend of jobs becoming scarce will accelerate to the point where it becomes impossible to employ everyone, unless you start inventing "busy work" jobs or change the work-to-live dynamic.

I'm neither calling it good nor bad; I'm just highlighting the need to come to terms with it, because it will come regardless of our preparation.

[javert]

I'm neither calling it good nor bad

That's the real issue at stake. You should be calling it good, because it's progress.

It's somewhat conceivable that there can be times in future human history where there are large chunks of people who aren't capable of doing any productive work, but they probably won't be lasting. [1]

And for everyone who can find productive work, more efficiency in the global economy enables more production, thus more progress, and is therefore a plus.

[1] Partially because if we do things right, population will gracefully degrade in times when fewer jobs are available. (I'm not advocating more social controls to achieve this; providing additional money per-child to those on welfare, for example, goes strongly against this.)

[kstenerud]

I'm not calling it good because I just don't see the graceful transition occurring. If anything, I see massive upheaval because almost everyone will deny the reality around them until it becomes impossible to do so.

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. However, we don't live in a perfect world.

[javert]

Do you have any ideas on how to avoid or cope with this massive upheaval?

[sounds]

I agree with you javert, that increased efficiency and productivity are good things. But I do so for a fairly uncommon reason: I think that we have very little idea of the capacity of one person.

Our economy is still marked by massive disruption: technological innovation isn't just limited to services. Process engineering, chemical engineering, astronomy, physics, linguistics, archeology, ... they're all experiencing disruption at an increasing pace. They all increase GDP.

To me, this is an indication that as we provide people with powerful tools, their minds expand to use those tools. The exponential feedback may become much more smooth (less "disruptive") but I think we're a long way from a local maximum.

The current economy still "feels" like an idling 2-stroke leaf blower to me. It sputters and races because its carburetor and ignition are, well, inefficient.

What would it take to get a jet engine-like economy?

[javert]

I like what you're saying.

However, you're not answering your comment's grandparent: how to avoid, cope with, or assume away the concern that a super-high-tech economy will leave unemployed people who aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to participate.

[sounds]

That's a good point. The other replies suggest that "almost everybody in the world" is unlikely to learn new skills, yet they are doing amazingly well, at some things.

Threats to survival do tend to motivate "almost everybody" to attempt new skills, or attempt to change things in their favor. I deliberately avoided saying what the changes ought to be. And I don't think there are real, present threats to survival for most of us. I don't think it's a good idea to rain down mandates on "everybody else," when society is already discovering better means by working organically. I like to think of that as innovation.

My main intent in posting was to point out that there are solutions being found -- not by the "invisible hand" of economics, but by the collaborative efforts of the non-intellectual non-sophisticated "unwilling participants." Though I think education eventually has the highest payoff, I enjoy working at a community level with the innovation happening all around me.

[kiba]

or assume away the concern that a super-high-tech economy will leave unemployed people who aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to participate.

Is changing your intellectual sophistication hard? I mean, I learn programming by basically bashing my fingers against the keyboard. The concepts aren't difficult to learn, but it require tons of practice to become competent.

[kstenerud]

It's not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not something I could come up with a reasonable answer to in short order...

One additional wrinkle will be the tendency of the poor to have more children than the rich, exacerbating the jobs-to-people ratio problem.

[piccadilly]

Developed countries might provide a safety net and strong job retraining programs