[lotsofpulp]

I don’t think is true. “Higher skill” is nebulous, but lots of automation quick reduces higher paid positions, such as software that allows people to be more productive or technology that obviates many other devices (smartphones).

But the pace of automation is slower for high touch work, such as nursing home work, cleaning, cooking, and other jobs that typically pay the least.

Of course, there is a need for very specialized work that could pay more, such R&D in cutting edge computing, medicines, chemistry, etc, but the chances of achieving that level of expertise does not seem realistic for the majority of the population.

[ethbr1]

You're looking at it in terms of capability, instead of ROI.

CFO/COOs typically aren't investing in the highest-capability automation, because that's the most capital-expensive automation.

It's far cheaper and easier to buy another crane or loader, driven by a person, than a fully autonomous system.

So given the two options, they'll usually pick the former (because it has quicker ROI).

There are some exceptions, if a large proportion of the work is high-skilled, e.g. pharmacy, but with dockworkers we're probably talking about the lowest-skilled jobs being eliminated first.