1/ First we jump at "robots eating jobs" out of unfounded fears. Now we dismiss it eagerly with structurally irrelevant near-term data.
Conversation
Replying to
2/ The structural shift IS happening and will continue. It's just invisible in the data we track. Robots will eat jobs and create new work.
1
4
Replying to
3/ Plenty of questions can be asked to poke holes in "jobs back, nothing to see here!" counter-narrative: kinds of jobs, precarity, drop-out
1
1
Replying to
4/ But the choice isn't between "robots eating jobs" and "robots not eating jobs" or even "robots eating jobs and pooping more jobs"
1
1
2
Replying to
5/ Key questions that affect income security aren't about number of jobs, but nature of work. Free agency, gig economy are still the future.
2
3
4
Replying to
6/ "Ha ha, data shows robots not eating jobs!" may be easy counter to tech critics for now, but would be terrible news if actually true.
1
1
2
Replying to
7/ We WANT robots to eat jobs. We WANT big transformations to happen in the labor economy. Jobs suck. Why would we NOT want better model?
Replying to
8/ Fortunately that's still happening. Robots eating jobs and creating more liberated patterns of work than 9-5 bullshit-working.
2
2
4
Replying to
9/ 15 years after 's Free Agent Nation we still don't know how to correctly bookkeep work across all patterns (jobs, gigs...)
3
1
4
Show replies
Replying to
because robots taking jobs is capital-intesive. And that tends to spread inequality. Yet...
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
... it is something that can be solved. IF new jobs that are created are not BS jobs...
Replying to
...First waves of automation tended to create services- and beaurocracy- related jobs (patent lawyers fit into that description).
1
1

