“Almost half of all jobs could be automated by computers within two decades and "no government is prepared" for the tsunami of social change that will follow
It says that while innovation has always resulted in job losses, usually economies have eventually been able to develop new roles for those workers to compensate, such as in the industrial revolution of the 19th century, or the food production revolution of the 20th century.”
Oxford Martin school study:
“Our ﬁndings thus imply that as technology races ahead, low-skill workers will reallocate to tasks that are non-susceptible to computerisation – i.e., tasks requiring creative and social intelligence. For workers to win the race, however, they will have to acquire creative and social skills.”
But they are forgetting something, this time around, it will not only be the low-skill workers which will lose their jobs to computerisation, but also the high-skilled or specialised workers. Of course everybody can imagine a robot doing the job of one of the chinese workers assembling an iPhone, but they're forgetting a computer finding tumors on a scan instead of a radiologist. Or a simple program like TextExpander replacing the need for multiple secretaries in an office and replacing them with just one (or none).
This time around everybody, even the creative, are possibly losing their jobs.
So is this a bad thing? No. This can be a good thing, if done properly.
We just need to let go of or concept of earning money; working for everything. We need to accept the existence of a minimum income without the need to work. And I'm not talking about an income so you can just support yourself and barely stay alive; no, I'm talking about a healthy income in which you have some spending money for the fun things in life.
The hardest part? There will still be people working. And they will probably get a slightly higher income, but not too high else all prices will rise and the minimum income has to rise.
So how are we going to pay half the world population a minimum income? Taxes? Nope. Make everything free, so there wouldn't be a need for a minimum income? Maybe. Robots? Probably. If one robot takes the place of 20 people, and increases productivity and profit, then why don't we use the profit to pay for those peoples minimum income.
Their is just one question left; what to do with all this free time?
Or not; I can't predict the future. I just see a problem and want to find a solution.