While I agree with your premise, the idea that people will have jobs creating automation is flawed. Most circuits today are designed with basic machine learning. That is extending into part assembly.it won't be long (maybe 10 years) before design engineering is completely automated.
With the increases in effeciency driving down cost, we even get to the point where automation is cheaper to replace than repair. Nobody fixes computers or TVs anymore, you just buy the newer, better model. So maitenace jobs are out.
But that applies to physical automation. The biggest hit will be in the lower teirs of white collar office work. All of those jobs can be done with software that can be replicated infinately. Theres a very small deployment window.
People will find things to do and some will flourish in the coming economy. Others who do well now will flop. Thats just how these transitions play out. But you are right, fear of the inevitable is pointless. We can't fight automation, but we can intellegently prepare for it. That means wise investing now, learning new skills and networking with others who can provide opportunities.
The idea of having an "automation-proof" job is nonsense. Who will be your customer if theyre out of work? These things have a ripple effect through the whole economy. As that begins to set in, employers will need to cut costs further which means capital investments in automation... It's a feedback loop until complete market saturation is reached. But it's not the end of the world, people will adapt in ways we can't yet foresee.
The more concerning issue for me is how society will respond. As job loss accelerates, more pressure will be put on politicians to "fix it", and the resulting overreach will drive a wedge through society between those willing dependants (who will proclaim themselves enlightened and the role of the government is to see to the well-being and quality of life of everyone - communism 2.0) and Anarchocapitalists who will seek freedom from oppressive taxation through things like cryptocurency. Most people lean slightly one way or the other now, but as job loss intensifies, I think it will become an extremely polarizing point of contention in society. Its not the effect on me that worries me, its the real potential it can push just enough people to the other side that my principles are threatened, and are supressed by the desperation of others who are less prepared.
I still have faith that people will be all right in the end, but it could pose a huge setback before the longterm benefits are realized.
I know how to feed myself, no worries there if automation takes my livlihood. But civil unrest or prolonged economic depression can start the whole of society down a destructive path that takes decades to extricate ourselves from.
I think automation is still a good thing, but there will be economic upheaval all around it in the coming years.
"...people will adapt in ways we can't yet foresee." That is how I feel as well. It's an extremely hopeful outlook.
As to societal collapse, whatever form that may take, have you read much about the Universal Basic Income idea? It's something I really can't wrap my head around yet, as it involves government, but the idea sounds... Intriguing? I guess that's the word I'm looking for.
The basic idea is that, as automation theoretically drives folks to perpetual joblessness (a somewhat preposterous notion to me), the government will provide a basic income to every citizen (an even more preposterous notion). I'm an anarchist through-and-through, so it's hard for me to even fathom that level of market interference, but I can't help but wonder about a free market movement with a similar end.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think a UBI is practical from government, but there may be ways to leverage crypto-currency to the same effect. For a UBI to work would require a hyper-inflationary model to be sustained indefinately, which no conventional economy was designed to do. But with crypto, we can invent new economic models that were not possible before.
Consider this: Everyone gets 10 coins of some new crypto... we'll call them "UBICoins".
The UBICoin can be used for purchases, but depreciates at a fixed rate daily. If you don't spend it, you lose it. The longer you wait, the less it's worth. That cash-sink can hedge against inflation brought about by minting a billion new coins every week. When you transact business, the coin expiration clock starts over. This would provide a currency for day to day needs. The UBICoin could be exchanged at a fluctuating market rate for another deflationary coin at anytime to preserve it's value for long-term savings. We'll call that SaveCoin. UBICoin to SaveCoin conversions could happen almost instantaneously, but transacting with SaveCoin takes a week of verification, so it's not practical to hold for short-term transactions. They could even be the same coin with an internal flag that toggles it from one type to another.
That's one idea, and probably not the best. But this could never be done with physical currency, and that added functionality could make some form of UBI viable. I still have my reservations though, it would be a whole new economic model with many potential hazards and a rough transition for many people. I think it is possible for the first time in history, but not without it's dangers and most current tests are so flawed, they could never scale up. But it's an interesting thing to think about.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you just partially described the Steem blockchain, didn't you?
The trouble then would be to get businesses to accept these tokens that depreciate with time. It would be wise in that model for them to convert to an inconveniently slow token. But I like the idea. Probably the closest thing I've heard to a reasonable solution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit