Annie Lowry, a journalist usually better than this drek, writes:
> Yet that does not necessarily mean that half of all journalists — or half of
> all Americans, for that matter — will lose their jobs to the robots, never to
> reclaim them. Economists refer to this fear as the “lump of labor” fallacy,
> the incorrect assumption that there is a finite amount of work to be done,
> and that the more robots do, the less there will be for the rest of us. In
> the past, after all, humans have proved remarkably adept at thinking up new
> things to do when plows, cows, steam trains and dishwashers arrived to help
> free up some of our time.
Oh, she says,
"... there might be a rough period of transition as median wages keep falling
for American families. Workers — especially those without college degrees —
will continue to find themselves less and less valuable in the marketplace."
Spare me those rough transitions. Sometimes they have lasted 15 years for the
USA, and this one looks to be perpetual. For individuals they can last a
lifetime. But never mind, it is just that old fallacy that economist quickly
put down.
ISN'T THERE ANY SHAME ABOUT PRINTING THIS STUFF IN THE PAPER OF RECORD?
And Brynjolfsson KNOWS he's disembling. In Race Against the Machine they
explicity stated that the unemployed "... can be a majority or even 90% of the
population." Got to sell those books.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/magazine/hey-robot-which-cat-is-cuter.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140401&nlid=9633259&tntemail0=y
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
