Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
It has one of the most picturesque divides in wealth. You have homes with heli pads and 3rd world shacks where naked children scavenge for food in the same city. It's been experiencing massive economic growth in the last 10 years, but the large majority are only spectators to it.
I would like to know some details. I'm not asking for you to provide them since you may not have them, just saying I would like details. If it is through market capitalism that people are getting wealthy in Mumbai, it necessarily means the consumers of the good/services of the capital owners are getting wealthy. I'm not saying this is the case in Mumbai; it could (and may) not be an example of market capitalism. Even so, when it comes to the poor scavenging food in the streets, context is needed. Thomas Sowell's fundamental question "Opposed to what?" is good here. Even if a very poor place undergoes decades of 10% real growth, there will still be poor people scavenging for food for some, most, or all of those years.

I'm not saying that is something we need to worry about in the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, but gradually you'll get to a point where average joe will simply not be needed.
If there is no work for humans due to efficiency gains and humans are still the dominant market force (which is what is being posited), it means people have everything they want. This is because it would mean that humans are consuming the goods/services produced in the markets yet humans are unable to use their human capital to make themselves better off.

Something else worth mentioning is how the concept of a "job" is simply formal and doesn't fully represent use of human capital. Human capital is essentially a human's ability to work (with hands, with mind, etc.). I'm not sure how productive discussing this now would be (unless you want to), though I figured I would mention it. There are lots of interesting things in there. Like how with enough efficiency gains, we might not think in terms of jobs, we might not use money, stuff like that.

What is the free market no-welfare outlook for people whose entire job sector disappears? Transportation and warehousing is a sizable sector that probably won't follow projections, but will almost certainly disappear from the job market within 20 years. Where do you see someone who has driven trucks for 25 years go after that sector dies down completely? I'll give you that in the long run maybe new sectors will open up, but what is your theory on what will happen to those individuals?
The changes are marginal. Most (all) industries are continually losing jobs due to efficiency gains. Because this never happens all at once and because there are marginal differences between people, an industry can go from robust to nothing over the span of several decades without causing much displacement above average. In your scenario, the most common response is along the lines of the 25 year trucker would usually keep his job just fine while new truckers would not be hired. An experienced trucker is more valuable than an inexperienced one. At first, automated trucking will only be used at the lowest level of skill. Over time that will gradually increase.