This is the debate of our time and it really isn't being debated. In the past we've seen targeted sectors get hit by new efficiency and as a nation we've sort of shrugged and said "Get new jobs! Should have seen it coming!" Reality was these were normally blue collar jobs, or "low skill" jobs so much of the middle and upper middle class could rest easy. However, a tidal wave is coming. It isn't going to be one sector or one type of person, it's going to be white collar jobs across the country. Yes there will be new jobs that appear, but there will be fewer and many people making good money in things like insurance, energy trading, sales, radiology, etc. will have to switch industries and probably make less money. How are we going to deal with this? Can it, should it be prevented? I look at Kimberly-Clark cutting 5000+ jobs basically because Amazon and others are making cheaper diapers. People will celebrate that the diapers are now $1 less, but it cost a lot jobs to save that $1. When that sort of efficiency hits the economy as a whole, will it be worth it?
Efficiency is the end result for capitalism, so it's doubtful it'll be prevented. I do believe UBI will be the defining issue of our generation (Gen X and Millennials). Ideally climate change would be more important, but unfortunately, I think we already lost that battle.
In the very long run (provided we don't destroy the planet for human habitation, which is what appears to be the current trajectory) it's great - humans never need to worry about producing goods to survive, they will be produced for them. Instead of worrying about things like food and shelter and energy and luxury goods - a completely autonomous system can satisfy all these needs for every person on earth. In the short or medium run it will be a huge amount of pain for the many while all of the gains of this consolidation accrue to a shrinkingly small few - it makes more sense to start now to distribute gains evenly instead of allowing a few rich clowns to win the race to capture it all (we actually have laws against this, they are just never enforced). If Amazon is going to own both the vertical supply chain and the horizontal distribution network for all goods - great - but does Jeff Bezos really need to capture 100% of the profit from this? I don't think even he would think so.
It is a complicated issue because we will continue to see low level service jobs replaced and we will see white collar jobs attacked as well. Ultimately we are headed to a new economic change that is likely on par with the industrial revolution. Computers and technology are going to render a large amount of jobs unnecessary. The question is how will the wealth be distributed when you have an under/unemployment rate of 40% and up? The general view is that the government will need to redistribute the funds to the people. If this is the case, we will be putting an unbelievable amount of trust in the government. History tells us really bad things can happen when we do this. The question of whether it is worth it is irrelevant. It is going to happen and if the USA decides to try and prevent it; we will just fall behind and ultimately still be sucked into it. The real questions that need to be asked are how are we going to adjust to it. What is society going to do when restaurants and fast food places and grocery stores and retailers have cut their employees by 50% and more. There are 15 million Americans that work in restaurants. Those are only a few of the industries effected. It is going to get nasty before it gets better and likely you and I will be dead before it settles down. Schöpferische Zerstörung.............
It's not really a debate, both are lagging big time. It's not the case that the market is ready to be more efficient, and it's not the case that there are enough quality jobs that pay living wages. And it never has to be a competition between these two. We give humans jobs not cause they exist, but to use their incredible potential. That potential still exists for the time being, even when they don't have jobs (gasp!). When jobs go, it doesn't mean consumer wants stopped growing exponentially or the potential of a human to produce something disappeared. When jobs go, they should be replaced by jobs. That's forever. It's just the type of job that changes. The real inefficiency is every 4 years someone guarantees 100% efficiency in moving humans from one job to another, and each of those 4 years, 0% progress in that regard. All this technology, this AI, that's for us. We're not competing with it. What we're competing for is control over the technology. That's the fundamental question of our time. Who is going to control the technology that our taxes + infrastructure allow to exist?
Economic efficiency should be a good thing for the human race. We're creating more wealth than ever before. This should not be a problem. It's only a problem because the wealth is going to a small sub-population and there are now all these people being told that someone's drunk their milkshake, that they don't deserve to share in the bounty our civilization has produced because others have out-maneuvered them on taking shares of the pie (errrr, milkshake). I think there is no question we should push full steam ahead on mechanizing and automating, we just need to figure out how to share equitably without gumming up the works.
Guess how did Marx got his brilliant idea? It was at a time when all the wealth was concentrated in the hands of a small group. The wealthy people who think it is a great idea to gain as much wealth as possible are just short sighted. The people would demand redistribution of the wealth one way or another if things keep going like this. The only funny thing is a significant percentage of the population think that Trump is the one to get this done, LOL.
