Note that I am not disagreeing with you, I just suppose that RMS may not be completely wrong.
Note that I am not disagreeing with you, I just suppose that RMS may not be completely wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work
The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era is a non-fiction book by American economist Jeremy Rifkin, published in 1995 by Putnam Publishing Group.[1]
In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traced the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful.
As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.[1]
Moving on to new technologies just puts more people out of work with nothing to replace their old jobs.
Additionally, technology is neutral regarding human nature. As we grow older, we are less comfortable with shifting around and there are attachments that make it more difficult.
Sure, it's great to be rootless and fancy-free when you're in your 20s, but when you hit 40 or 50, you have to start thinking about how it's all going to end.
Technology is not about putting a few people out of "work", but about freeing people from it altogether.
The idea that we no longer need as much labor to sustain ourselves is nothing new. But it appears that we're completely willing to convert the surplus into improvements in quality of living. What we at one point might consider a creature comfort, we gradually elevate to the level of necessity. Cars, air conditioning, 2 day weekends. You name it.
In a rational world, that should be "because of... continuous productivity gains". I admit that the way you phrase the situation is how most people today view it but just as much it is a statement akin to "despite digging deeper and deeper, we keep getting closer to China"...
I understand that the real picture may somehow be different... For example, gains in healthcare may keep more people at work who else wouldn't be able to work. And an elaborate society also allows women to work, increasing the workforce. So I see this is not a black/white issue.
The argument is simply that the more things X people can do, the less things there are for a remaining Y people to do. When workers are more productive, total societal demands can be met with fewer workers.
Seems intuitively obvious. X factory produces N widgets. If it is can suddenly produce with half the workers, it will fire the others and get profit.
It has been argued that in these situations, demand will magically double or jobs will be magically found for these laid-off widget makers. Whatever their long pedigree, it seems to me these arguments only seem plausible because we've trained to believe them. A look at the present world seems to indicate that "what you'd expect without the propaganda" is happening - the laid-off widget makers of all sorts are thrown on the scrap heap with crocodile tears from the finance managers running things.