The author points out that technological advance often creates more
jobs than it destroys, but neglects to address the fact that the jobs
it creates are invariably unsuitable for the people who have been put
out of work. To imply that society benefits on balance as a whole in
the long run is equivalent to saying the rest of us will be better off
after a disenfranchised segment of the population dies, which we will
at least until further advances cause the cycle to repeat itself.<p>He makes a related claim that technology contributes to a trend toward
more interesting and fulfilling work for many people while eliminating
mostly the boring and repetitive jobs, which is also debatable. I met
someone who worked in a betting shop for years at a decent rate of pay
until an IT upgrade meant that no further cognitive skills were
required of the staff. As a result, everyone was fired and replaced by
minimum wage workers.<p>Far from having some irrational fear of change he seems to suggest,
people on the other side of this issue seem to be the more realistic
and better informed parties.