Difference between revisions of "2014/02/BIG and Technological Unemployment"
m (fixed SMW call, updated topic) |
(topic update) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* '''author''': [[author::Mark Walker]] | * '''author''': [[author::Mark Walker]] | ||
* '''source''': [[site::Journal of Evolution and Technology]] | * '''source''': [[site::Journal of Evolution and Technology]] | ||
| − | * '''topics''': [[topic::jobsolescence]] [[topic::income/ | + | * '''topics''': [[topic::jobsolescence]] [[topic::income/ubiquitous]] |
* '''keywords''' | * '''keywords''' | ||
* '''link''': [[URL::http://jetpress.org/v24/walker.htm]] | * '''link''': [[URL::http://jetpress.org/v24/walker.htm]] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:23, 17 October 2019
- when: 2014/02
- author: Mark Walker
- source: Journal of Evolution and Technology
- topics: jobsolescence income/ubiquitous
- keywords
- link: http://jetpress.org/v24/walker.htm
- title: BIG and Technological Unemployment: Chicken Little Versus the Economists
- summary: "The paper rehearses arguments for and against the prediction of massive technological unemployment."
Abstract:
The paper rehearses arguments for and against the prediction of massive technological unemployment. The main argument in favor is that robots are entering a large number of industries, making more expensive human labor redundant. The main argument against the prediction is that for two hundred years we have seen a massive increase in productivity with no long term structural unemployment caused by automation. The paper attempts to move past this argumentative impasse by asking what humans contribute to the supply side of the economy. Historically, humans have contributed muscle and brains to production but we are now being outcompeted by machinery, in both areas, in many jobs. It is argued that this supports the conjecture that massive unemployment is a likely result. It is also argued that a basic income guarantee is a minimal remedial measure to mitigate the worst effects of technological unemployment.