Good points. I do think that it'll work itself out - economically and socially. How it will play out and what we should do to prepare is what I'm mostly interested in. The steady and constant increase that happened in the postwar era is not so different from the automatization trend downward in the long term, but it does make a difference short-term. Thousands of women entering the workface at a steady rate is not the same as thousands of truckers laid off at once. There will be friction and inequality along the road. I thought she alluded to that part of the topic with sentences like these: ...which I find much more interesting than the economic workforce debate. I might've been reading too much into it, though.o far. To those for whom it’s been less of a blessing, we keep doling out the advice to upgrade skills. Unfortunately, for most workers, technology is used to “automate” the job and to take power away.
We don’t need to reject or blame technology. This problem is not us versus the machines, but between us, as humans, and how we value one another.
It appeared to be as such from your graph up there. The fact of the matter is that I don't know a lot about this at all. There's a lot of talk about disruptive technologies lately. Are they unrealistically fast? How fast can technology really change the workforce? I don't see it as unrealistic for truckers to lose their jobs in just five years if automation is safe and good enough.I think anyone who told you women in the workplace was steady and constant was lying to you.
That industry didn't wake up to find itself out of a job.
Cadell and I really went at it here, it's definitely related to this thread. I'm pretty much with 'bl00, not ready to heed Chicken Little.the economic workforce debate