>” Yes. Anything creative, or one off, or specialized and I work in a field that makes heavy use of this technology.”

  1. Will that be enough jobs for everybody?
  2. If people have a choice between having a creative good or service for free, from a robot, or paying for a human to do it, will most or even many really choose to pay?
  3. Why can’t specialized work be done by robots? Isn’t that, in fact, what they are already best at?
  4. How can one-off products exist in a future with readily available photogrammetry and 3D printers? Anything you see that someone else has, you can recreate at home.

>” It would be cool if you could explain why you think returns from increased productivity only flow to capital and why you think this will somehow cause prices to rise when the data doesn’t show that.”

The argument doesn’t hinge upon that. It hinges on whether there will be any jobs which fundamentally cannot be automated regardless of technological advances, and if so, whether they will offer enough employment opportunities for everybody in the country.

I understand the motivations for resisting this conclusion. Longterm commitment to a political or economic ideology makes one resistant to acknowledging anything which could upset it. Proponents of economic and ideological isms often perceive and present them as infallible solutions to every problem.

However a great deal of the assumptions those isms are predicated upon are invalidated when it becomes possible to automate every job, or even most. It isn’t a good answer to these problems to suggest that a few jobs will persist. The economy we have right now cannot function with only a small minority of people employed.

I post text here, often accompanied by images and sometimes video. People then clap or don't depending on whether they enjoy what I posted.

I post text here, often accompanied by images and sometimes video. People then clap or don't depending on whether they enjoy what I posted.