If jobs are “lost” because robots are doing more work, why is it a problem that the population is aging and there are fewer in “working age”? Shouldn’t the two effects sort of cancel each other out?
In: 13038
All these top answers are terrible. Jobs are not lost due to robots on net. Your premise is flawed. Yes, obviously, some jobs get automized, but other jobs get created by them. On net, automation likely increases employment along with productivity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355539508_Will_Workers_be_Unemployed_Because_of_Robots_A_Meta-Analysis_on_Technology_and_Employment
https://mobile.twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1197215908176916480
Nations that have a declining population may well be able to maintain total levels of wealth and maintain, or even increase, per-capita wealth (the increase in productivity from robots offsetting the loss in population). HOWEVER, they will not be as wealthy as they would have been if they had kept their population steady or increasing. And not just in total levels, but likely in per-capita levels as well. Generally, a declining population is bad for per-capita wealth for a variety of reasons (largely – much more of output goes to taking care of old folks rather than being reinvested in innovation)
Latest Answers