The Luddite Fallacy Fallacy [View all]

[salvorhardin]

‎

I’ve spent a lot of time considering (here, here, here, and here) the notions of technological unemployment and the Luddite Fallacy: the idea that technologically driven productivity — machines — will replace, are replacing, human labor. I’d like to revisit that here. My basic conclusion: the Luddites were obviously wrong at the time. But they’re right now — at least in the U.S. Even a stopped clock is right eventually.
Full post: http://www.asymptosis.com/the-luddite-fallacy-fallacy.html

I agree with his conclusion, although not his reasoning. It goes far beyond cognitive limits. Nor do I agree that expanding the EITC is the way to go. Olav's comment at #4 pretty much reflects my thinking:

You already know what I think: rather than arguing against automation because it’ll lead to unemployment, we should be automating more and more and putting an end to human drudgery. At the same time, we must decouple subsistence from employment–because, pretty soon, we’ll *all* be out of work (as most jobs are currently constituted). Guaranteed subsistence income is pretty much the only way we’ll survive. You know I’m not saying that work will or should go away–I have enormous amounts of work I want to do that I’m currently prevented from doing because of the need to earn a living.
Link: http://www.asymptosis.com/the-luddite-fallacy-fallacy.html#comment-5320

Although instead of a guaranteed subsistence income, I'd advocate for a guaranteed living income.