There's a great 15 minute video by CGP Grey introducing the same set of concepts that technology will contribute to unemployment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Its a bit pop-sciency, but its very approachable and well explained.
Its a bit pop-sciency, but its very approachable and well explained.
Would the words "service economy" even make sense back then?
Never mind that the latest in assembly line robotics are as flexible as humans in their movement, and can be programmed by demonstrating the basic movements a few times. You can pretty much tell Joe to walk away from his station, and roll this robot into the same place.
It takes some effort to start thinking out of the box, seeing things from a much farther point of view and realize none of this is bad. The human race keeps advancing, progressing, and very often the leaps we make from decade to decade radically change the way our society functions. Cars changed society just as smartphones changed society. These changes force us to adapt and while sometimes it costs people their job, there just isn't that much room for these concerns, as cold as that may sound.
For example, digital distribution cost thousands of people their jobs in retail. Yet are we arguing digital distribution is a bad thing? Only those whose current income depends on the status quo not changing ever really make that point.
I haven't looked at the stats, but I'm certain that cars cost thousands of people in the horse industry their jobs as well.
This is very parallel to the "Would you sacrifice yourself to save 10 people?" moral question. In other words: "Would you sacrifice your own comfort to improve the lives of others?".
And I'm not judging. I've never been in the situation where I had to make the choice... but if I were, I would have very little actual input on the outcome. Nor should I.