>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.
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.