One interesting nugget from Superfreakonomics book: whaling industry in the US at the 19th century was fifth largest (think all the insurance industry right now) and employed 1% of the total workforce (think twice the auto industry now). It has almost completely vanished now and yet US economy did not collapse (for the smarties out there - I know about the Great Depression, has nothing to do with it).
I deduce from this that even a huge market shift can be absorbed by a healthy economy and healthy society without too much harm. Now, for the people that get caught in it, it can suck big time, and means must be found to help those of them that can't help themselves (the toll booth lady from the article who has a hobby of buying and selling houses probably is going to be fine anyway), but economically if you say we can't do without some industry or sector, more frequently than not it's just a failure of imagination.
"... can be absorbed by a healthy economy and healthy society..." Are we playing Spot the Problem with the Argument? Because I think I have a possible winner.
If you're implying that US economy and society is hopelessly sick, it is not. If anything, we have wastly more support programs for needy than in 19th century, and vastly more opportunities for mobility and career change.
We could absorb the shock of industry of size of the whole insurance industry now disappearing and amount of people roughly equivalent of twice the whole car industry now having to find new jobs. What exactly says we couldn't absorb a bunch of toll booth attendants or cashiers having to look for other job?
There's a pretty big difference in terms of employability between a toll booth attendant (whose skill set is probably largely fit for the same easily automatable jobs) and, say, an insurance adjuster (who may not have transferable general skills but is likely to be significantly more educated and more desirable as a worker).
That's the core of the problem that you're not really addressing: we'd be absorbing the unemployment of more people already only marginally capable of employment as it is.
Are you saying some people are too stupid to do any job except the job they happen to be doing right now? It sounds to me a) pretty condescending and b) plain wrong just because there's a lot of jobs not requiring particularly high qualifications or a lot of training.
>>> only marginally capable of employment as it is.
This of course is a damning statement about our government-run education system (which I have no illusions about - in best-of-breed big cities it now produces people that finish the school not being able to read their own diploma) but I still think even for those there's plenty of jobs if you bother to look. I'm paying someone to cut my lawn, for example. And the federal government pays someone to deliver my mail. Both don't really need a doctorate to do.
> Are you saying some people are too stupid to do any job except the job they happen to be doing right now?
No. I'm saying that there are certain strata of jobs into which most people of the jobs you propose to eliminate fall and that that strata of job is being systematically reduced as automation takes more and more of that cut of the pie. They are not effectively substitutable workers.
> I still think even for those there's plenty of jobs if you bother to look.
Reality indicates otherwise, as demonstrated by the massive underemployment and unemployment among marginally-skilled workers (both with college degrees and without).
I deduce from this that even a huge market shift can be absorbed by a healthy economy and healthy society without too much harm. Now, for the people that get caught in it, it can suck big time, and means must be found to help those of them that can't help themselves (the toll booth lady from the article who has a hobby of buying and selling houses probably is going to be fine anyway), but economically if you say we can't do without some industry or sector, more frequently than not it's just a failure of imagination.