If you read the actual report (instead of that guy's blog), the information is rather positive:<p><pre><code> >Overall, there is a modestly positive outlook for
>employment across most industries, with jobs growth
>expected in several sectors. However, it is also clear
>that this need for more talent in certain job categories
>is accompanied by high skills instability across all job
>categories. Combined together, net job growth and skills
>instability result in most businesses currently facing
> major recruitment challenges and talent shortages, a
> pattern already evident in the results and set to get
> worse over the next five years
</code></pre>
Mike Rowe has a great foundation to help people who are trying to find those job: <a href="http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblooklike/" rel="nofollow">http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblo...</a>
Wealth inequality is already a problem today. I would argue that since it's an issue already, AI, technology and automation has largely nothing to do with wealth inequality as it exists today.<p>The problem of wealth inequality was predicted to occur within capitalism long ago by a man named Karl Marx. So compelling were his predictions that entire societies have been constructed (and overthrown) in attempt to create a system that is more fair. Russia and China are the two biggest failed experiments in trying to solve this problem. Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism, but he is most famous for being right about wealth inequality and capitalism.<p>What Karl Marx said about inequality is this: It happens because of the private ownership of the means of production. As long as the lifeblood of the economy, its vital resources, factories and technology are owned by a tiny group of individuals, as long as production is governed by the law of capital accumulation and not the needs of society as a whole, poverty, injustice and capitalist crisis will remain and ultimately grow. Workers produce everything; the ruling class produces nothing, yet the ruling class own everything.<p>Take for example your typical Tech corporation: Apple. Apple makes $1,865,306 of revenue per employee. The top senior software engineer gets paid around $222,550, which is a number that is far higher than the average salary of an apple employee.<p>What is evident is this: The people who do almost all of the work in apple (engineers) are only getting paid less than a fifth of the revenue they generate. Where does the rest of this revenue go?<p>It is used to increase the incomes of a few people who do much less or no work. C-level executives pad their salaries with a huge portion of this money. Tim Cook alone got 10.2 million in 2015 and that's not including stock options. While tim cook is a very capable individual, his salary indicates that his work output is equivalent to the work output of 50 engineers. Can a single human produce output equivalent to 50 engineers? I would argue no.<p>The rest of the money is either distributed as dividends or reinvested back into the company in the form of infrastructure improvements or just money in the bank. Who directly benefits from this? The Shareholders or in karl marx's words: The people who own the means of production. These are the people attending davos. They are the real problem, it has nothing to do with AI.
The blog relies on some negative quotes about AI from the paper. The hypothesis is that AI will make most workers obsolete.<p>The paper is not a definitive declaration of what will happen, rather it is a survey of CxOs and HR managers. These people have expertise but their expertise is not predicting the outcome of AI.
To quote Glenn Reynolds, "I'll believe there's a crisis with the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis." These are the people who lecture about sustainability but fly 1500 private jets into Davos in the age of Skype.
">Overall, our respondents seem to take a negative view regarding the upcoming employment impact of artificial intelligence, although not on a scale that would lead to widespread societal upheaval—at least up until the year 2020."<p>Four Years is just one election cycle, so buckle-up and enjoy the ride, make sure you're ahead of the tide.
Oldie but a goodie "Economics of Nanotech and AI" (Robin Hanson, Foresight 2010) [0].<p>[0] <a href="https://vimeo.com/9508131" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/9508131</a>
As anyone who works in technology will tell you - "its turtles all the way down".<p>As long as the internet is held together by duct-tapes - I do not think there is going to be a shortage of jobs.<p>I always find it amusing when tech people think they can make someone else unemployed with a script.<p>Oh gosh - this package manager is awesome - said no one ever.<p>The real reason for job losses is with income inequality caused by dysfunctional govts.