spend their extra money on other things (meaning more employment is available in other industries for the former widget makers)
That doesn’t follow. It may mean that more jobs are available in other industries but these jobs require skills that the former widget makers don’t have, thus creating an imbalance where one area of the economy has reduced unemployment and one has increased unemployment.
Furthermore, it doesn’t mean that the number of jobs is balanced out, but the amount of money. It is entirely possible that three jobs worth $X are lost among widget makers and one job worth $3X is created in the other area of the economy.
The Industrial Revolution led to the creation of new jobs that were still low skill jobs. Because they were low skill jobs, people displaced from other jobs would be able to take the new jobs. The fact that the new jobs were low skill jobs was good luck; it’s not a general characteristic of jobs that are created by technological advance, and there’s no reason to expect that other changes should also create jobs that are sufficiently low-skill that the displaced workers can take them.
The Industrial Revolution led to the creation of new jobs that were still low skill jobs.
Um, I don’t think that’s true. I am not sure what do you mean by “low skill”, though. To clarify, let me make my statement stronger: up till now technological progress did not lead to massive unemployment. Do you think that new jobs created during, say, the last 30 years are “still low skill jobs”?
I don’t know a single example of technological progress starting from early metallurgy (bronze, etc.) which led to massive unemployment. Do you really think it’s all just good luck?
I don’t know a single example of technological progress starting from early metallurgy (bronze, etc.) which led to massive unemployment. Do you really think it’s all just good luck?
It’s good luck in the sense that it’s accidental and not essential to technological progress. It’s not good luck in the sense of being based on a random element that could have turned out another way.
I suggest that earlier forms of technological progress shift the available jobs in a way which increases the level of skill needed for the new jobs (in comparison to the old jobs) by much less than later forms of technological progress do.
That doesn’t follow. It may mean that more jobs are available in other industries but these jobs require skills that the former widget makers don’t have, thus creating an imbalance where one area of the economy has reduced unemployment and one has increased unemployment.
Furthermore, it doesn’t mean that the number of jobs is balanced out, but the amount of money. It is entirely possible that three jobs worth $X are lost among widget makers and one job worth $3X is created in the other area of the economy.
It looks like you’re arguing against empirical reality. The Industrial Revolution did happen. It did not lead to massive unemployment.
The Industrial Revolution led to the creation of new jobs that were still low skill jobs. Because they were low skill jobs, people displaced from other jobs would be able to take the new jobs. The fact that the new jobs were low skill jobs was good luck; it’s not a general characteristic of jobs that are created by technological advance, and there’s no reason to expect that other changes should also create jobs that are sufficiently low-skill that the displaced workers can take them.
Um, I don’t think that’s true. I am not sure what do you mean by “low skill”, though. To clarify, let me make my statement stronger: up till now technological progress did not lead to massive unemployment. Do you think that new jobs created during, say, the last 30 years are “still low skill jobs”?
I don’t know a single example of technological progress starting from early metallurgy (bronze, etc.) which led to massive unemployment. Do you really think it’s all just good luck?
It’s good luck in the sense that it’s accidental and not essential to technological progress. It’s not good luck in the sense of being based on a random element that could have turned out another way.
I suggest that earlier forms of technological progress shift the available jobs in a way which increases the level of skill needed for the new jobs (in comparison to the old jobs) by much less than later forms of technological progress do.