The great depression proves that not all jobs need to be lost to have the effect that I'm describing. That directly contradicts your assertion that I need to explain how every job will be eliminated. If you are going on the assumption that "automation does not cause structural unemployment" because not every job will be automated then you are clearly wrong about that point.
Fair enough, we certainly don't need 100% unemployment for there to be problems.
That is a meaningless point to make. My points either stand or fall on their own merit regardless of what happened over a century ago. Your argument is simply a form of pleading.
You don't have a novel argument. You offer absolutely nothing beyond what people have argued for 2 centuries. I only bring up their arguments to highlight why they were wrong. But you fail to understand that very simple point. I've highlighted more than enough of the failures of your argument.
You obviously don't know what it takes to be a professional website developer. That analogy is like saying anybody that can change a light bulb can be an electrician. You can create a web interface with drag and drop, but to actually get it to do something requires programming. So yea, somebody could create a fan web site for their favorite band but they are not going to be working on Amazon.com with that skill set.
You missed the very clear point about layers of abstraction...
Besides none of this applies to the 30 old truck driver today. Oh, and on top of that higher education is priced out of reach of most people anyways so exactly how would they get the training after they've been put out of work?
Let's see, we have social services and we have the internet with a ton of free resources and we have a shit ton of low to moderate skill jobs. But yeah, I guess you need a $100k education to do anything outside of driving a truck. /s
Just one more thing...Using technology and creating technology are 2 entirely different things. Turning on a TV and making one are not even remotely similar.
Thanks Einstein, but every single human being alive today uses a lot of technology to do anything, including making any new technology. It's almost as if you have no idea how anything works.
It's been increasing since around the turn of the century
Sure if you just want to nitpick an arbitrary timeline you can show anything with short-term trends. Fact of the matter is, the long-term change has not been anywhere near significant and the delta itself is still trending down since the peak of the recession. But sure, try to abuse statistics to say anything you want even when the numbers clearly don't help you.
It is that surplus of workers that is part of the reason real wages haven't improved.
There will always be a surprlus of low-skill workers, that's why we have regulations like unemployment benefits and minimum wage to avoid the inevitable fight to the bottom just to survive. The fact is that surplus does not have an upward long-term trajectory, it remains pretty static long-term.
I just did. But one thing about my argument is that I am saying that we are entering a situation that has never happened before.
Every single case of new technology had never happened before it did. You have not proven anything or even made a coherent argument for your hypothesis of structural unemployment or sudden mass layoffs.
I have shown that technology has destroyed employment in sectors of the economy in the past, and that the only reason unemployment did not rise was because a new sector became dominant.
Saying this makes absolutely no sense, once again, the economy does not run on "sectors", it runs on the totality of the system. It doesn't matter if you break it up into 3 sectors and see a huge shift in employment between them. Your argument fundamentally has to do with there not being enough TOTAL jobs, which makes absolutely no sense and you are doing a piss poor job of arguing it.
The precedent has been set that a sector of the economy can see a huge reduction in employment due to technology. It is now up to you to prove why services won't be like the other two sectors. Why are services immune to technology reducing employment while agriculture and manufacturing were not?
So you continuous try to accuse me of arguing that "it's been that way before it will be that way again", but as soon as you get the chance that is your exact argument for how unemployment will come about. You don't list how, you just say "it will because it has" and then you demand I prove why it won't. You're just digging yourself an even bigger hole.
Why are services immune to technology reducing employment while agriculture and manufacturing were not?
The economy runs on jobs, it does not run on sectors, jobs are not at risk to technology because technology is only introduced to INCREASE production. In an economy that is losing consumers at any non-negligible rate, production would SLOW, not increase. You are arguing a mathematical impossibility because you simply do not understand economics.
And they did eliminate those jobs.
Yet, unemployment rates remain stable.
The people creating SDCs are saying about 5 years and I doubled that to a minimum of 10 years. Nobody is saying it will take longer than that to develop the tech.
Do some basic research, there are still huge hurdles. Elon Musk might have said 5 years but he always thinks on much shorter timescales than reality. If you think "nobody" is saying it will take longer then you simply are reading only what you want to read.
One thing you can find disagreement on is the adoption rate. Once again I'd be happy to discuss that but it is not part of this conversation.
Actually it is the entire conversation. Rates are what matter, technological unemployment does not happen because the economy is a feedback loop with technology being introduced in a top-down fashion by its nature. As soon as the economic signals show slow-down, technological adoption slows. And the only way unemployment would become problematic with technology is if it were adopted in mass quantities resulting in mass unemployment.
And we are back to the very same thing I tried to explain earlier, you are engaging in the Luddite Fallacy because you completely ignore the economic process.