On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:10:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 12:51:41 PM UTC-4, F. George McDuffee wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/qc3cda2
--
Unka' George



Have not read the second article, but found a major problem with the first one.

Increasing the number of jobs for humans will mitigate the problem of inequality in the distribution of income only if these new jobs have three properties: (1) they must be jobs that a computer cannot perform; (2) they must require skills that are scarce in the human population; and (3) the new jobs must include a substantial fraction of the population. Increasing the number of jobs, such as supermarket checkers, that do not have a scarce skill requirement will not solve the problem.

It seems obvious to me that item 2 and item 3 are mutually exclusive.

You can not require skill that are scarce and also include a substantial fraction of the population. If a substantial portion of the population has the skills , the skills are not scarce.

Dan

I think the idea is that there must be enough total jobs to employ a
substantial fraction of the population, but that they can include a
variety of types of new jobs -- each of which must require skills that
are scarce.

Which, I believe, is a pipe dream. The writer has set up a necessary,
but probably impossible, set of conditions to solve the employment
situation.

'Back to my sackcloth and ashes... d8-(

--
Ed Huntress