[Mr. Anderson]

Almost all of the sources I have looked at say automation actually CREATES jobs and does not destroy them. One of the major arguments for technocracy is the more automation you have, the less jobs you have, the less people receive wages, and the less consuming power they have. If further automation creates jobs, wouldn't this undercut this entire premise?

I agree there are many other problems, but this was a concern which popped up for me.

[The Nathan]

I think the actual arguement Technocracy makes about "less" jobs is that there will be less "menial" jobs as, due to the process of automation, you would see a necessary shift from the actual workers manufacturing, to those same workers maintaining the machines, or switching to a tech job that revolves around said machines.

So it's not really a "loss" in jobs, but a redistribution to a more meaningful position.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Problem being that we need fewer, but more qualified personnel-- and since we do not have those personnel, we have less qualified men going unemployed while we import labor, by hook or by crook, to fill the positions automation opened up.

I am absolutely in favor of automating every possible thing, but I do think the process needs to be carried out more systematically and logically-- and we need to address the fact that automation undermines the basis of our economic principles, scarcity.

[Mr. Anderson]

Alright, thank you for answering my question.

[starman2003]

I agree, except that I doubt the government will regulate new technology to prevent job losses. The government itself may come out on top if many/most private sector jobs are lost. It'll greatly expand to soak up unemployment. It may be a long time before the job of a soldier is taken over by a robot. Unlike a worker performing some repetitive task, a soldier must be very versatile. At least, it may be a lot cheaper to have human soldiers, as robots which are just as capable would be too costly.