I find the historical arguments frequently presented as evidence that technology has created more "jobs" than it has cost to be unconvincing. It conflates what we currently consider a "job" with something that in the context of 1850 would be "the amount of labor needed to live the best life available". I am reminded of The Flintstones when it is pointed out that advances in farming tech led to more "jobs". It seems to take a view that historical times were just like our time- simply with more rudimentary tools- ignoring that a paying "job" was a much rarer part of society as one moves back in time.
Looked at that way,technological progress has been reducing the need for labor for as long as there has been technological progress. This is a net positive, IMO, however I think it is nearing the time to once again decide what kind of society it is leading us to.
We have removed children from the pool of available labor because of increases in technology, and have (arguably) been extending the duration of effective "childhood" into the third decade of life. This has not been counted as a loss of "jobs", we have simply come to an agreement that these young people should somehow not be considered as part of the available labor pool.
We have agreed that the elderly are to be allowed to spend a substantive portion of their lives as "retirees". Sometimes for decades. Yet we don't see a lack of "jobs" as causing this- we view it as natural because the need for their labor is lacking.
The labor required to maintain a sanitary household that is climate controlled, well fed, dressed and healthy (something that was once a full time "job") has been reduced greatly and we have not looked that as a loss of "jobs".
The handicapped and infirm are not expected to starve on the streets due to lack of a "job".
These are all examples of net positives, don't get me wrong, yet they can also be viewed as "unemployment" by modern standards. We have simply chosen not to do so- then told ourselves that "jobs" have become more plentiful as technology has progressed, when what has actually happened is that we have altered our perception of what a "job" is- and who needs to have one if they wish to avoid pariah status.
The general outlook for the past several decades regarding who should be supplying the labor to keep our society healthy has been shrunk to only include healthy, not handicapped people between 20 and 65 (roughly) who are not engaged in some kind of post secondary education (which can acceptably reduce their productive years by up to another decade), engaged in the process of raising children, or (on a darker note) incarcerated, or prosecuting some kind of war (a destructive act which creates a need for more labor in the crassest way possible)
What is the next group that will be eliminated from the expected pool of available labor as technology moves forward? When 10% of the population can pull the cart that the other 90% are riding on, what rights will the riders have?
