I literally have an Iraqi coworker, whose brother works in wholesale.
Advertising? Ever get a call from an Indian? There’s a Douglas Adams joke in there somewhere…
And no, they’re not all calling from India. And there’s other things they do.
Yes, it does, and does it generally in two ways:
1. Technology make things that only high skilled workers could do, into jobs a low skilled person + a piece of technology can do.
Peter Diamandis put together a prize for a “medical tricorder”, just so medicine could be administered by low-skilled people, rather than Nurse Practitioners and Doctors.
But we don’t even need that tricorder to have that reality:
2. Sealing up loose ends the technology itself creates.
A good example of that is again, airline baggage handing. You could in theory automate it (and we have tried), but it’s very costly, and it’s far easier just to train a few people to handle it.
We may eventually automate it, but that in of itself points out something you’ve taken for granted here.
( btw, if you want a more recent example, Amazon. )
We don’t automate overnight. There are time horizons to doing that, as well as costs. There may be a possibility to automate, but it would incur such a high cost that it would be next to impossible for company to do it.
In an economy where over half of business computers are still running Windows XP (so no wifi functionality), and where filing systems are partly paper-based, you’re taking a lot for granted, the biggest thing being time. Time periods that leaves decades for workers to do something that isn’t cost-effective to do otherwise.
So your source states economic freedom correlates with employment. Just in case it wasn’t clear, from the source:
“The results are that economic freedom independently explains (after accounting for the relationship of both with IQ) a further 12.9% of the variance in unemployment, with less economic freedom increasing rates of unemployment.”
And equally, nothing of this proves the Futurist argument correct. Unemployment on the whole still isn’t being driven by technology.
This is an argument Futurists and Economists have been having for over a century, and the Economists keep winning it, just like they’ve also been winning the debate against the Biologists over concerns of resources.
Cwolf, the argument is out there if you’re interested to look at it (and I can show it to you if need be), but I have to ask, are you?
Demographics; the population is aging.
Subsidized schooling, we’re keeping more kids in College & other schools for longer periods of time than we did in the past.
Disability insurance. The number of people on this has doubled since 1995.
This isn’t anything to do with jobs. There are temporary disruptions caused by technology, but when we sort through the whole length of the business cycle, trends in that category point up.