Even operating under the presumption that agriculture, manufacturing and services are the only 3 sectors that a job can ever fall under, you still offer absolutely no evidence that we can automate every single possible thing that humans may want in the future. I have already proven that you cannot predict or even imagine future jobs, yet you demand that automation will handle those as well.
We don't need to automate everything, and we most certainly won't any time soon, but the Great Depression happened with only 25% unemployment. Besides you are now changing your argument. Before you were saying that new jobs would be created to replace the old. Now you are saying that we won't even be losing that many jobs to automation. That is a worthy discussion to have but it hasn't been the one we have been engaged in.
No it doesn't, your argument is not new, it's been used since the 19th century by the Luddites, hence the term "Luddite Fallacy".
You just can't resist the old "Well it worked out before so it will work now" argument can you, no matter how much you insist you aren't. The Luddite Fallacy simply doesn't apply and I've shown you multiple reasons why.
This is not even remotely true, and suggests that you don't know what the Luddite Fallacy is. Although it brings up an interesting point about computer programming. Today, 12 year olds can create web apps and applications that would have taken thousands of engineering hours 10 years ago.
Can't comment on your first sentence because once again you failed to make a point. As for the next point, I hope you realize that your observation doesn't apply to everyone. The 12 year olds who are programming are the ones who have the aptitude for it. There are many plenty more who don't. You know, all those people in jobs that are likely to be automated.
You fundamentally don't understand the point. We still have a 5.5% unemployment rate. Technological innovation and automation has been happening for a long time and yet we still have not seen even a shred of evidence of technological unemployment. You keep demanding that this technology is different, today is different, we're doomed, but you have not provided any evidence or sound reasoning for how this would happen and why.
Not a shred of evidence. How about the fact that real wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s? Or how about the fact that the unemployment rate of people who have given up looking or who had to settled for part time has grown relative to the base unemployment rate. That rate currently sits at 11.0%.
All of that is consistent with the supply in the workforce increasing relative to the supply of jobs.
Beside, I am not saying that this problem is critical now. I am saying that it will become a problem in 10-20 years. There is plenty of technology that is coming up that will eliminate millions of jobs like self driving cars, and IBM's Dr. Watson. The funny thing about those technologies is that before they pass the threshold of working they will be relatively invisible. After all nobody wants a driverless car on the road that mostly won't cause an accident. But after the tech become viable it will provide such economic saving that its use will balloon.
You simply are engaging in incomplete thought experiments of how the world could be if automation were to take over suddenly today. You have yet to provide evidence of Technological unemployment
I just did and I am not talking about today anyways. I'm talking about the next decade or two.
