> As long as central bank is doing at least a halfway competent job, overall unemployment will stay low and stable. Ideally, you have people quit for a new job instead of getting fired, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make too much of a difference, as long as in aggregate they find new jobs.
Two big ifs: the central bank is competent and enough and people find new jobs.
Don't get me wrong: I am for progress and technological innovation. That's why we're working, to make our lives easier. But progress needs to be balanced, so that the changes it brings are properly absorbed by society.
> Two big ifs: the central bank is competent and enough and people find new jobs.
That's only one 'if'. Well, the second 'people finding jobs' is a given if you have a half-way competent central bank and a regulations even slightly less insane than South Africa's.
But let's worry about technological unemployment once we actually see it. So far it has been elusive. (Even in South Africa, it's not technology but their own boneheaded policies that drive the sky high unemployment. They ain't technically more advanced than the rest of the world.)
How do you know we're not seeing technological unemployment? There have been quite a few layoffs, some of them attributed directly or indirectly to "AI".
Second, there are far fewer junior jobs in software development, again attributed to the advance of AI.
Two big ifs: the central bank is competent and enough and people find new jobs.
Don't get me wrong: I am for progress and technological innovation. That's why we're working, to make our lives easier. But progress needs to be balanced, so that the changes it brings are properly absorbed by society.