You might be interested to know that the US congress started hearings on the threat that technology posed to workers in the US, in the early 1960's [1], reading their report you will find many of the same themes. I was reading a book about Thomas Watson Jr which also mentioned the government's concern with technology displacing jobs in the late 30's. And yet through out that time unemployment remained low because new jobs were created.
Displacing factory workers shouldn't be too large of a problem really, and developed US and European nations show it. It sure isn't trivial to deal with, specially depending on the speed it may happen; but the path is more or less laid out already.
What is less laid out to me is how we shall proceed in the Western nations, where automation is starting to consolidate at higher levels (services) -- if no nothing is done inequality seems bound to quickly rise for me. They'll have to figure out some mechanism to boost income for the lower wage workers through something like e.g. universal income, some incentive to hire, free or remunerated education, etc.
While income equality is kept steady, demand for labor won't ever be a problem.
Factories that churn out millions of consumer items with just a few workers naturally creates demand for more highly refined, labor intensive artisanal products. Agricultural farming drives demand for labor intensive organic produce. This process of more wealth driving demand for higher quality goods and services, in turn driving demand for more labor is just as inevitable as automation.
If it weren't, automating the agricultural sector would have resulted in 95% unemployment in the early 20th century. It didn't.
Unless you artificially repress demand by stripping wealth from people (a process that requires corruption), demand for labor won't dry up.
But, the government and our financial sector is doing that. So demand has dried up.
I didn't downvote, but I think your point is weak nonetheless. Spending should be a function of available resources. If you have $100k you're going to spend it more or less the same as if you had $1mil and the gov. taxed you heavily leaving you with $100k. Also, the spending function (as a fraction of income) is generally understood to decrease (as far as I know) -- the wealthy spend less of their income due to lower marginal expenses. That goes for the 'stripping wealth from the people' claim.
I also generally don't believe artisanal products or organic produce can meaningfully reverse this trend. And if an artisanal product has no measurable distinction from a mass-manufactured one, and wealthy people may more for them, I'd say that's one mechanism for income boosting (albeit a very inefficient one I suppose).
>I didn't downvote, but I think your point is weak nonetheless. Spending should be a function of available resources. If you have $100k you're going to spend it more or less the same as if you had $1mil and the gov. taxed you heavily leaving you with $100k.
Uh, yes. I think it would be stupid to deny this.
>Also, the spending function (as a fraction of income) is generally understood to decrease (as far as I know) -- the wealthy spend less of their income due to lower marginal expenses.
The wealthy save more. Again, not controversial in the slightest.
>That goes for the 'stripping wealth from the people' claim.
By stripping wealth I am talking about the financialization of the economy - for example, driving Detroit taxpayer's money into derivatives so that they slash pensions. Or lowering property taxes, driving that stream of revenue directly into the banks' pockets via a stream of mortgage interest payments.
Or thousands of other examples that have nothing to do with the wealthy's propensity to save, but has driven dumptrucks of wealth into the pockets of the 0.1%.
>I also generally don't believe artisanal products or organic produce can meaningfully reverse this trend.
Which trend? The gradual wealth stripping trend that has been accelerating over the last 30 years or this automation trend that been continuing for at least two centuries?
Yeah, I don't think the (real, albeit small) job creating power of craft beer is going to overwhelm the job destroying power of Wall Street either.
[1] http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023803.pdf