I'm not saying they are wrong, but I do want to address a problem with those claims:
Alarmists have been saying for centuries (no exaggeration) that technology will wipe out jobs and make it impossible to make a living. Each time, they have been wrong. Technology has lead to increased standards of living and more job creation. Yes, outdated jobs are destroyed, but they are replaced with new, often better paying, ones.
Alarmists have been saying for centuries (no exaggeration) that technology will wipe out jobs and make it impossible to make a living. Each time, they have been wrong. Technology has lead to increased standards of living and more job creation. Yes, outdated jobs are destroyed, but they are replaced with new, often better paying, ones.
I'm inclined to agree with you, that the alarmist warnings about job destruction are overblown, but the trend is certainly real. Automation and technology reduces the need for human employment. The economy shifts and people find new industries, but this shift is not unlimited. There will not be new jobs simply because there are more unemployed people, there has to be economic need for the employment. Manufacturing jobs are decreasing, and the American economy has adapted with an increase in service jobs, but there is not an unlimited need for service jobs. I think you're saying that with lower than average employment participation rates in the American economy, even though the economy has largely "recovered" and continues to improve. With that said, I think the alarmist warning is overblown because this is a trend that, while accelerating, still takes decades to play out. We're not in danger of having massive unemployment on account of technology in the next 10 or 20 years, though it certainly gets incrementally worse as time goes on.
People always underestimate the supply side of the equation:
1. Businesses use technology to replace workers because it reduces costs.
2. If costs decrease, eventually products become cheaper.
3. Consumers spend less money on these goods, often essentials and basic goods.
4. So they then spend that money on more and better goods and services/luxury goods and services.
5. Which creates jobs in those fields.
Also, the businesses have to hire experts to manage technology. Consider how many openings for engineers, IT personnel, developers, etc. were created by the advent of computers. Smartphones may have destroyed many jobs but how many people are employed developing applications, hardware and services? And how much time and money do we save by having them.
Finally, as essentials become cheaper, we don't NEED to work as much. Many people think that unions created the 40-hour workweek, but that's simply not true. Workweeks have declined because technology and higher living standards have resulted in a reduced need for work, and the workweek is still getting shorter, on average, to this day.
100+ years ago a middle wage earner might have had to work from dawn until dust just to earn enough to feed his family and put a roof over their heads, but today, we not only work less but also have more luxury goods even in the average American household.
Once again, this is because 1) we can afford more leisure time and 2) even after working less we still earn enough to have more. That's because of technology.
There might be a point at which technology does pose more of a threat to labor, but over the past few centuries, and likely for the next half century at least, it's been a very good thing for society and the Luddite Fallacy has been proven wrong again and again.
If you want to learn more about this kind of thing, this book is a great starting point. It's easy to read and probably makes a lot more sense than my rambling.
I dont think it will drop below 400 in the next 8 months.