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.
Re:Ask Patrick McKenzie (patio11) anything
by Cushman on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @10:53PM
(#2815165)
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?