Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_iw2gqc4 wrote

There's a pretty big difference between a change happening over generations and a change happening in a timespan shorter than a generation.

In 1880, something like 50% of Americans were farmers, but the change was slow enough that the son or grand son would move to the city for a better economical outcome.

The farmer didn't wake up one morning to find his farm completely automated with drones everywhere.

The fear is that the change will be too sudden for economies to adapt and governments to implement policies like UBI. The creation of new jobs or fields is also unlikely to just happen overnight. But if the sudden change led to high unemployment and social unrest, how long can we wait for those new fields to appear while society is thrown into relative chaos?

Like many others, you seem to have this rose tinted glasses view of massive layoffs but it's OK because a massive proportion of the population will just magically requalifify for another field in like a month and poof, back on the job.

Same braindead idea as the people going "learn to code" to like a trucker lmao

4

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw2j6tr wrote

Fair enough. The rate of technological advancement keeps increasing.

So far, what you’re describing never occurred. It even has a name in economics: The Lump of Labour fallacy.

However, as changes become more and more rapid, it might be the case that labour will not be able to adjust as quickly.

In any case, I’m not particularly worried because I believe that even if it all goes to shit, it will be short term pain for long term gain. Humanity has dealt with so much worse over the ages and we’ve always managed to prevail. If a revolution of some kind becomes necessary to guarantee UBI or something like that, then be it.

In any case, long term we will be in a better society. And that’s what I ultimately care about (and not having to work too).

−2