You still don’t get it. Quote the part where they advocate limiting technological change. That’s what a Luddite is. At worst, this guy (and it’s one guy) is a Cassandra.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
“Less competitive” is econo-speak for “lower.” When everybody and his or her cousin has been reduced to survival through the equivalent of selling arts and crafts projects on Etsy, I think we’ll probably have a VERY good idea what “less competitive” mean … it’ll make what Wal-Mart now pays entry-level workers look goooood.
[/QUOTE]
You do realize he’s speculating there, right? Because he has no more ability to predict the future of jobs and wages than anyone else does. And you are then spinning his speculation to come out the way you want it to so that you can ‘fix’ the problem that might happen down the road.
Good point. There is a link to the actual paper in the article, though it’s well hidden, probably because the website pays its contributors nothing or next to it for their work, and you get what you pay for. Here’s the link.
From skimming the paper (it’s 72 pages long, and I have a life) they seem to have taken the BLS stats for US jobs, as well as the breakdown for the skills those jobs require. They then took a look at what tasks computers and robots are doing right now, and then developed an algorithm that compared the skill sets and developed a number that indicates the probablility of those jobs being automated. And 47 percent of the BLS list of jobs fell into the “High Risk” category.
Also, if anyone is so sure this guy is right, then I have two words for you: Business Opportunity!!
- Put all your money in automation stocks.
- Sit back.
- Profit!!
It’s not just one guy. And they are not advocating anything, they are just pointing out an alarming trend. I don’t know of anyone advocating limiting technological change. That includes me. I advocate adopting Basic Income to help people survive these job dislocations, should they occur.
The people who wrote the paper did a lot more research and work than you or the other naysayers in this thread, who are mostly just hand-waving and harrumphing.
I’d say the only one hand-waving and harrumphing in this thread is you, to be honest. The quote you gave was obviously the guy kicking back and freely speculating on what he THINKS MIGHT happen when he was thrown an obvious blue sky question. Most of the paper doesn’t really seem to say what you think it does, and mostly it’s more along the lines of the arguments that YOU have handwaved when other people made them in this thread…but now that you have a paper you can cherry pick for a few things that are sort of what you want them to say you are all for it (except the parts that don’t really go along with your own world view).
Since you looked at the paper, is the 47% the net loss of jobs, or does it refer to specific jobs which will be replaced by other jobs. A good many of the jobs people did when I was growing up no longer exist, but lots of jobs today didn’t exist back then.
It would be lovely if we all got to do our hobbies for much of the day. It would be even lovelier if we got paid enough to live doing so.
You like playing games and talking about it? Well, here you go if you do…sign up and get paid to play and chat with people about console or computer games. 
Then they aren’t “Luddites.”
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
When everybody and his or her cousin has been reduced to survival through the equivalent of selling arts and crafts projects on Etsy
[/QUOTE]
But that isn’t what’s going to happen, and* isn’t even what this study you’re trumpeting says is going to happen. *