Again, I said nothing to the contrary. Your reading comprehension skills are horrible. I will restate for those who can actually READ, and do so in simpler terms in the hopes that you may be able to follow follow along this time:
- Mr. Lynch is contending that for every 100 individual idled by automation and technology, 100+X jobs are created. Thus, automation and technology is a net job creator to the economy.
- I’ll not repeat the the core economic case which refutes this postulate; it’s in the thread.Lets simply reiterate the outcomes if Mr. Lynch’s postulate were true:
ONE. GDP would be rising. Obviously, when you replace line workers, which have ongoing costs in wages and benefits associated with them, with a robot, which incurs a one-time capex investment and an an annual maintenance fee on the system (which average around 20% of the capex investment per year) that’s a huge net positive to GDP. And yet, despite a rush to automate, GDP languishes.
TWO. Mean household income would be rising. Again obviously, if you replace a manufacturing job with technology jobs, the latter pay more. Do, you would get a rise in household income, unless the contention is that about 90% of those 100+X jobs alluded to above were service sector in nature (which means you’re trading good paying jobs for poorly paying jobs, which is not really something that technology ought to be bragging about.)
THREE. Medium is covered with articles advocating Universal Basic Income. Each of those articles references the “automated future” as one of the driers for UBI. In other words, they argue that we need UBI because automation will result in 20% of the people having good jobs, with the rest subsistence level (services sector) thus hollowing out the middle class. In short, if automation was a net creator of good jobs, nobody would be wasting their time writing about UBI. There would be no need for the discussion.
Hope that helps.