No, I agree with the earlier poster, skam240. Your observation about "There's always plenty of work" just means that capitalism can always be applied, contrary to skam240's assertion that somehow we can run out of work. A job is just some amount of work done by a human.

That's not in the story. What is actually in the story is that they are automating some jobs which are particularly amenable to automation. I imagine the degree of automation is probably being exaggerated as well. But in a fluid society like China, the people who no longer work for Foxconn, can now get work elsewhere. And because they've worked for Foxconn, they're now more experienced and skilled than before.

But in a more static, employer hostile society like most of the developed world, where are the new jobs going to come from when automation replaces jobs? I see this story being misused as a rationalization for not bothering to fix the problems of the developed world where considerable effort to make workers' lives better has backfired terribly. You can't encourage a trade such as employment by heavily favoring one side.

And I think it's only a short jump from idealistic but clueless top-down efforts to attempt to improve workers' lives to the creation of massive, multinational, oligopolistic corporations, the only forms of businesses that can survive such a hostile environment. A centralized mechanism for improving the lives of workers is far easier to derail and corrupt. It also creates a massive economy of scale since huge businesses can exploit such revenue streams to incredible lengths.

Or we could find a way to make plenty of work. A huge part of the problem is the many obstacles thrown in the way of creating new businesses and employing people. I'll take complaints about unemployment seriously, when someone treats it like a serious issue.

There's a big reason this doesn't apply. In the financial world, having a really good year means a higher likelihood of having a poor year next. There's no well above average investment that can stay that way. And that's really the only reason for the caution. After all, nobody will dump money into a losing investment on the hopes that it will continue to lose money.

When we get to technology development, past performance is indicative of future results. The strategies for developing new technology remain more or less the same, the same economics that don't zero out the value of human labor remain in play, and we still have increasing productivity of human labor as a consequence of technology development.

Sorry, but we don't have to accept things that aren't true. There's vast creation of these "classes" throughout the developing world, you just choose not to recognize it.

Let's get the post-scarcity technology first before we implement the post-scarcity society.

Another thing to consider here is Jevons paradox which is:

One side effect of increasing automation is that human labor becomes more productive. The above model would then predict that "consumption" of human labor should increase. That actually happens on a global scale despite the relative tribulations of the developed world.

I think the combination of comparative advantage and Jevons paradox explains why the current myths of automation-induced unemployment are so consistently wrong.

And I'll note here, that China just doesn't have these problems. They may not be as much a "bottom" as you'd like them to be.

I don't care what you call it. Sure, it's a race and the developed world is losing it. One of the symptoms is a growing unemployment rate. Another is offshoring. We can keep blathering about how bad this competition is for us, but that doesn't make it go away.

I'd rather win this race than lose it. That probably means a modest decline in my standard of living. I'm comfortable with that since it will mean a better future.

An advantage which they still have. But they also have relaxed regulations and being in the largest industrial power of today with all the supply chain and infrastructure support that implies. I think a large part of the current economic problems with the developed world is that there is a profound ignorance of economics and what's actually going on in the world.

So not only are places like China great for job creation, they're also great places for the next wave of automation innovation.

It didn't. They didn't have to say that in the first place.

Employ them. That's what China will do. The two or three "lost generations" is a developed world problem coming from an uncompetitive labor force.

Because school kids would be forced to memorize a few hundred planets, if measures weren't taken. There was no reason to care that there were a lot of new planets. That's actual science. Now, our "scientific vocabulary" includes "dwarf planets" that aren't "planets". It's just dumb.

Exceptions like "this rule only works for one star system"?

Hasn't been a problem so far.

I'm speaking of 50 years from now, assuming we don't place a higher priority on global warming than we do on overpopulation and global poverty.