I hope so. But for automation to make fiscal sense, necessarily there would be fewer jobs, fewer hours and net lower pay servicing and supervising the machines. (assuming annual phone purchases have essentially flattened of course)
I hope otherwise, but an unhappy alternative forecast would be "Perhaps you won't have Americans assembling phones, but for sure a few people will own all the machines that do so"
Not sure why automating boring and repetitive and eminently automatable jobs is such an "unhappy alternative".
The entire history of technological progress that has brought more people out of poverty is of better and more automated agriculture and manufacturing and distribution.
Things become more efficient in the use of resources over time. Automation aids in that by reducing wastage.
Yes Apple shareholders might own the machines that make iPhones, but people working, doing service activities that can't be automated, they will be buying them. If there's no one to buy, there won't be any reason to make them.
>The entire history of technological progress that has brought more people out of poverty is of better and more automated agriculture and manufacturing and distribution.
Absolutely agreed. But previous technical progress has moved the bulk of people from one repetitive task (farming) to another (manufacturing).
It is a great goal to eliminate dreary jobs, but if the current process does not create new repetitive jobs but eliminates that category of task in favor of high skill tasks, then there is going to have to be some mechanism to impart those skills.
During previous technical revolutions, there was no effort to do so and luckily the new jobs could be learned in minimal time. But these are the exact jobs that are going to disappear now. And ironically people are becoming more skeptical of universities not less.
So yes, it is a great goal to eliminate low skill jobs, but assuming some invisible force will give everyone a challenging job that they can do is perhaps magical thinking. Consider: if you tell a factory worker that his job will be automated away, he is not relived by it but panicked. If it is an improvement for him, one has to ask why.
> If there's no one to buy, there won't be any reason to make them.
This is what caused of the great depression: concentration of wealth away from consumers who drive the economy and into a tiny number of hands. If it's just one company or even sector that fails then it's just a bump. If it's widespread or systemic then it's a disaster.
I hope otherwise, but an unhappy alternative forecast would be "Perhaps you won't have Americans assembling phones, but for sure a few people will own all the machines that do so"