Did you read what I wrote, how are you creating jobs when there is a net loss in jobs.
Your talking about what if scenarios. Algos are replacing jobs right now.
Already wrote this. So I'll rehash it again my industry has been decimated. The financial products and financial services industry has been decimated. No new jobs created, no new skills were needed to make the algos. Now there is a bunch of highly skilled people hanging onto their careers.
Another caveat everyone's job has parts that can be automated; the end equation doesn't have to be total job losses. It just has equated to a lower standard of living once salaries have been adjusted for automated sections of your job.
Since its Chinese new year and I should be relaxing and I don't feel like writing again, I'll answer your retort here. The old economy model you're referring to sites creative destruction as an equilibrium where you lose and gain jobs based on the development of new technology or better know as creative destruction.
The problem with the old model is it uses past examples and past slopes or rate of change to make that assumption that there is an equilibrium in displacement. The old model was right for every job lost there was a new job waiting in the wind.
There is no equilibrium in the new model only structural unemployment. Hence why UBI is being tested and proposed as a serious alternative to the outdated model.
Eat.
