I use a different model than everyone else which I think gives insight on this. I split jobs into 3 categories (simplified here to make it easy to understand):
1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology.
2) jobs that mostly transfer economic value (marketers, lawyers): these jobs keep increasing. (Note: I'm not saying marketing and law doesn't create value but more marketers and lawyers mostly means more value transfers rather than more value)
3) jobs that arbitrage time and money (executive assistant, cleaning person): I call these arbitrage because the dollar value of time varies between individuals varies and so they trade time and both win economically. These jobs likely grow with inequality.
In a future where wealth is concentrated and more jobs are automated, job types 2 and 3 most likely grow, not shrink. That's what happened because of past technological progress and I don't see a reason to think it will happen any differently this time. In fact, I expect this to happen even more this time.
I'm not saying this is a great outcome. In fact, I think this is an argument for basic income. But I don't think jobs are going to disappear anytime soon.
> 1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology.
I really don't follow why job types 2 and 3 would grow instead of shrink; shouldn't job types 1 and 2 be the ones to increase with technological advances?
Technological advancements meant massive increases in output per farmer but farming itself does not require specialized skills, so the increased productivity lead to the drop in the farmer population. Contrast this with activities like programming and medicine which cannot be automated wholesale -- programming and medicine do require specialized skills.
For instance, we'll need more programmers in future than we have now since someone has to program/maintain code written for self-driving cars (for the rest of the population), precision farming (for farmers), telemedicine (for doctors) etc, and with efforts like Learnable Programming [1], more people will pick up programming as a career, so the ranks of people that identify with the programming profession would swell not decrease.
I believe the same increased productivity would eventually happen to the field of medicine -- if computers become really good at the basic stuff -- physical examinations that can produce an initial diagnosis that is fairly accurate, would-be doctors will spend a shorter time in training since they have less material to master. I think this will eventually lead to more people qualifying to become doctors.
So the point I'm making is that including farmers along with doctors and programmers as examples of job type 1 needs some rethinking.
Some of the categories type 1 jobs will grow and some will shrink. More programmers will be writing code for self driving cars, but fewer truck and delivery drivers will drive those cars. Both of those are type 1 jobs because they produce new value. Type 1 jobs will shift towards mostly consisting of job that require specialized skills.
Thank you. Although I haven't heard anyone ever use the same breakdown as me, I have heard a lot of people who want to "change the world". I always interpreted that to mean that they want to do type 1 work.
Well articulated. This is a very good way of describing the way I've been looking at things.
I might amend your description of 2) to be "Jobs that mostly transfer economic value and provide competitive advantage". The increase of these jobs is driven by arms race style competition among capital owners.
I'm curious if you have any ideas of ways to combat the constant increase of type 2) jobs as I see them as a drain on our economic output.
I my hope is that BI means that the low intrinsic value of type 2) and some type 3) jobs means that this shift will be slowed or possibly even reversed.
I think there is a lot of intrinsic value in many of the type 3) jobs as well as a lot benefits to be had from skilled people performing them, especially when the skilled people take pride and pleasure in their work.
>In a future where wealth is concentrated and more jobs are automated, job types 2 and 3 most likely grow, not shrink. That's what happened because of past technological progress and I don't see a reason to think it will happen any differently this time.
The thing is, contrary to other eras, job types (3) (and some (2)) will be also be able to be performed by "robots"/software/technology.
1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology.
2) jobs that mostly transfer economic value (marketers, lawyers): these jobs keep increasing. (Note: I'm not saying marketing and law doesn't create value but more marketers and lawyers mostly means more value transfers rather than more value)
3) jobs that arbitrage time and money (executive assistant, cleaning person): I call these arbitrage because the dollar value of time varies between individuals varies and so they trade time and both win economically. These jobs likely grow with inequality.
In a future where wealth is concentrated and more jobs are automated, job types 2 and 3 most likely grow, not shrink. That's what happened because of past technological progress and I don't see a reason to think it will happen any differently this time. In fact, I expect this to happen even more this time.
I'm not saying this is a great outcome. In fact, I think this is an argument for basic income. But I don't think jobs are going to disappear anytime soon.