And the adjustment period can be longer than a human lifetime … so those people are just screwed.
That’s no way to go about this. Obviously, not increasing efficiency would be bone-headed, but it is centrally important to create a socially acceptable transition for those (and any people) who are affected by this. That is currently not happening and hasn’t been happening in the past.
The luddites were right. The changes industrialization brought really did suck for them and for them it really didn’t get any better ever, until they died. From that point of view smashing the machines is entirely rational, even if those same machines created tremendous, unimaginable wealth. Obviously I’m not advocating smashing machines here, but, you know, we do have to find workable solutions for the luddites.
But we don't owe it to make sure that no one is ever worse off. There are people who never had jobs in the first place. If a trucker loses is job because of technological change, why is the trucker now entitled to more than the person who never had a job?
My own guiding principle here is that everyone deserves a life in dignity, unemployed or employed. You are of course completely correct that we also suck at insuring that for the unemployed.
I mean, I’m more than happy to consider solutions to this problem that tackle the problem of unemployment as a whole, not just this small part we just considered. I think finding a general solution would definitely be even better and thinking about this problem (e.g. basic income) definitely often tends to consider unemployment as a whole.
Existing welfare addresses the problems of unemployment. Not as well as welfare in other English speaking countries, but it still ameliorates the problem.
My position is that even with the current welfare system, technologies that increase productivity, but make some people unemployed, are still good from a utilitarian perspective. The trickle down effect (including through the existing welfare system), which benefits the entire poor population, makes up for the negative effect on the newly unemployed.
EDIT: as always, I have no problem with downvotes for my other opinions, but it's really sad to see downvotes for economic orthodoxy. If anyone reading this downvoted me, please educate yourself on mainstream economic thinking. You don't want to be remembered as an anti-vaccination advocate.
That’s no way to go about this. Obviously, not increasing efficiency would be bone-headed, but it is centrally important to create a socially acceptable transition for those (and any people) who are affected by this. That is currently not happening and hasn’t been happening in the past.
The luddites were right. The changes industrialization brought really did suck for them and for them it really didn’t get any better ever, until they died. From that point of view smashing the machines is entirely rational, even if those same machines created tremendous, unimaginable wealth. Obviously I’m not advocating smashing machines here, but, you know, we do have to find workable solutions for the luddites.