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
This is a bad prompt because it’s a good excuse for everyone to bring out all their pet ideologies. Anyway, here’s mine:
Automation has resulted in an unprecedented increase in productivity over the past few generations, and that has led to an increase in the standard of living. 100 years ago we didn’t expect consistent electricity, or accurate climate controls, or year-round fruits, or a home for your family larger than 1,000 square feet. Because all that wasn’t practical for the common worker 100 years ago. It takes more resources to keep a 21st century citizen happy than a 20th century citizen, and that’s because we all have access to the benefits of higher productivity.
The concern is that, in order to maintain our current standard of living (or a future elevated standard of living), productivity per worker has to increase faster than a country ages. If people are used to a certain lifestyle and suddenly there’s not enough workers to maintain that lifestyle, people get very angry.
Latest Answers