Why don't we discuss what you think is wrong with my assertion?

So free markets haven't been tried. Do you see where I'm going with this?

A minimally regulated market which has perfect knowledge by all participants.

Yes. This is basic supply and demand. Due to globalization and automation, the supply of labor has gone up a lot over the past few decades. Either find ways to increase the demand for that labor or expect a decline in price. That's how economic systems work.

I think adaptation is a better solution than the current approach for the developed world. Keep in mind that the developing world doesn't have the stagnating median wage problem. Shouldn't we adapt or emulate within reason the approaches that have been demonstrated to be successful, than the approaches that have been demonstrated to be failures?

Or maybe the storm was well telegraphed.

Humans aren't an exception either.

Again, show systemic errors large enough to explain the effect. You still have not.

Again, free markets haven't been tried.

' Except that foreign workers are still benefiting.

It has to happen first.

Free markets haven't even been tried.

Once again we have a clueless story about automation destroying jobs which ignores that the claimed effect doesn't happen. Most of the developing world just doesn't have this problem. It's just another imaginary first world problem.

Instead the problem is the punishing of employers. When you mandate high minimum wages and plush benefits, regulations which drive up the cost of an employee while simultaneously making them hard to fire, and the creation of a variety of liabilities (eg, being exposed to large liabilities due to unsanctioned actions of your employees), you create an environment where it is better for employees to move the work to a better location and/or automate it.

We will see not only jobs moved to other parts of the world, but the automation as well. Call it "race to the bottom", "exporting the pollution", whatever, but it remains that a growing amount of valuable economic activity has been chased out of the developed world and it's not coming back.

90% is insignificant compared to the actual several orders of magnitude reduction in cases observed. I think it's instructive to compare measles vaccination to current climate research.

In the latter case, it's a study of a rather subtle effect by people who have biases large enough to easily swamp the observation and a huge degree of uncertainty that is ignored and downplayed (a notable example is the large error in the temperature forcing due to carbon dioxide concentration). While in the former case, there's no accounting of systemic biases that can explain the huge drop in incident of measles.

When are you going to present this other explanation? There's been a several orders of magnitude reduction in the incident of measles in areas that widely use a measles vaccine. The observation doesn't have to be made in a very particular format in order to be observed.

It's a cheap way to remove humanity as a risk factor.

That depends on a) what I "need" it to do which may be contrary to your assertion, and b) what the AI actually does.