"It is a moral imperative that any job which CAN be done by a computer SHOULD be done by a computer, because the alternative is a waste of an actual human's life. We used to have clerks whose only job was to be MS Excel's summation function. Hour by hour, day by day, they summed columns of numbers. After Excel exists, the existence of that job is a sin: hour by hour, day by day, they are wasting their lives doing something when they could be doing something more important, more worthy of their talents, which uniquely added value to the world."
This is so true. Does that mean that unemployment is not so bad after all?
I think it has little to do with unemployment on the long term. Humanity has been "automating" jobs since the invention of the steam machine. Some might say even further: since the invention of the horse and carriage, since the invention of the wheel.
If you look at the amount of automation we've got going on compared to 50 years ago, 10% unemployment is surprisingly low. Apparently, our skill in automation is only surpassed by our skill in finding new problems.
Rationally speaking, sure. If we replace 10% of jobs with computers running at 10% of the cost, that should mean that 9% of the workforce can now sit at home for all the economy cares.
The fact that it doesn't shake out this way in real life is quite straightforward to explain.
This is so true. Does that mean that unemployment is not so bad after all?