That's not as bad as it sounds. Every event has to happen for a first time. But you should realize that you are making a very extreme claim based on nothing more than speculation.
Full text here: http://jim.com/econ/
I think it should be required reading for everyone during high school. This chapter is relevant:
"The Curse of Machinery" - http://jim.com/econ/chap07p1.html
Long story very short? We'll be okay. It's been a worry for a long time, and it's always been false. But the chapter of the book says it much better than me, and it's a short read. Actually, I'm going to submit this now as a separate submission. Really, highly recommended, very insightful stuff.
Edit: Submitted here if you'd like to discuss: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127345
And therefore it will always be false?
William Felkin, in his History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery Manufactures (1867), tells us (though the statement seems implausible) that the larger part of the 50,000 English stocking knitters and their families did not fully emerge from the hunger and misery entailed by the introduction of the machine for the next forty years.
If this is true it is a big deal. Suppose you invent a device that will double economic output while putting half the population out of work. There's no question the device needs to be put to use, but something needs to be done about all these displaced people as well. Much of the surplus in productivity borne of your invention will need to be used to help those people switch to other work, allow them to retire early, etc. In other words you will be taxed heavily, something which is very hard to do these days in the States. So the American worker seems especially vulnerable to displacement by automation, and you get this scapegoating of machinery. If you don't like it, next time you hear some jerk on the radio bleating about high taxes and socialism, think about where that money might be going, and vote accordingly.
Sure, when the singularity comes things may be different. But if that is his case, then he should make the argument. The parent comment is just noise.
The conventional wisdom says that the economy will create 50 million new jobs to absorb all the unemployed people, but that raises two important questions:
What will those new jobs be? They won't be in manufacturing -- robots will hold all the manufacturing jobs. They won't be in the service sector (where most new jobs are now) -- robots will work in all the restaurants and retail stores. They won't be in transportation -- robots will be driving everything. They won't be in security (robotic police, robotic firefighters), the military (robotic soldiers), entertainment (robotic actors), medicine (robotic doctors, nurses, pharmacists, counselors), construction (robotic construction workers), aviation (robotic pilots, robotic air traffic controllers), office work (robotic receptionists, call centers and managers), research (robotic scientists), education (robotic teachers and computer-based training), programming or engineering (outsourced to India at one-tenth the cost), farming (robotic agricultural machinery), etc. We are assuming that the economy is going to invent an entirely new category of employment that will absorb half of the working population.
Why isn't the economy creating those new jobs now? Today there are millions of unemployed people. There are also tens of millions of people who would gladly abandon their minimum wage jobs scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, driving trucks and shelving inventory for something better. This imaginary new category of employment does not hinge on technology -- it is going to employ people, after all, in massive numbers -- it is going to employ half of today's working population. Why don't we see any evidence of this new category of jobs today?
I don't find some of his examples (robotic scientists?) particularly persuasive, but the idea that many low skilled jobs will be destroyed while few high skill jobs created... seems at least plausible to me. That this has never happened before isn't a particularly good argument why it couldn't happen in the future.
We don't need to wait for robot scientists to see the consequences of automation -- it's happening right now. Smaller numbers of skilled laborers are replacing larger numbers of unskilled laborers. To make the argumentative leap that this is a sustainable process, you have to prove that somehow, we will dramatically reduce the number of people who depend on unskilled labor to to make a living. I have yet to see a convincing proof that this is occurring. At best, we seem to keep shifting the kind of unskilled labor that we need, and paying less for it.
My (imaginary) farming and livestock-holding greatgrandfather probably didn't ever imagine someone could make a living out of Search Engine Optimization. Still, despite machines ploughing our fields, we still have jobs. So we probably will have jobs in 100 years time. We just have no idea which ones.
So, ATMS... would you replace them with human bank tellers? Would that be a net benefit to the economy?
I know Marx is beyond dated, and that it's only permitted to speak of him using hushed tones in serious conversation, however, in Das Kapital one of his fundamental arguments was that the long-run problem Capitalism is destined to face and ultimately lose to will be the problem of over-production. Which sounds counter-intuitive, as how could over-production possibly be bad? His argument is interesting and worth studying for itself, even if it is mostly outdated.
Over-production results in a general glut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_glut
Real demand is still present, but the lack of liquidity in a general glut artificially depresses demand. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke explains:
but the story that captivated Bernanke involved a town full of shoe factories that closed during the Depression, leaving the community so poor that its children went barefoot. "I kept asking, Why didn't they just open the factories and make the kids shoes?
The reason is because the community didn't have anything to offer the factory owners. The factory owners know that the community doesn't have money to pay for shoes, but on the other hand the community would have money if these factories paid them instead of closing the factories.
These problems would go away if anyone could own a factory and have access to the materials, which many people above have said. However, this goes against the tenets of a capitalist free market: where someone is free to own much of the resources/land/factories/IP, which sets the barrier to entry beyond what most people can pay.
One of these things doesn't belong.