05-02-2016, 02:50 PM
I see this argument a lot, and it could have been made a century ago. There are some fields that will wind up being fully automated. There are new fields that don't even exist yet. Machines need to be created, programmed, assembled, audited, shipped, serviced, and so on. Then there are the fields where it's been promised that automation will take over for many, many years, but it doesn't quite cut it. I've run through a dozen different versions of proofreading software, and none of them are worth a damn. They're certainly not worth the expense and hassle of switching over entire processes to make use of them.
Then there's the paperless society and electronic medical records. If our records are electronic, why does it take the same amount of staff to shepherd them through the process? Electronic records must be audited, maintained, corrected, and so on, and certain aspects are still kept on paper as "wet signature" documents. That last part is being phased out, but in order to do so, each clinician has to be issued a tablet to use out in the field so that they can obtain electronic signatures. Someone has to maintain those machines, which will see a LOT of wear and tear.
There will be a reduction in employment (maybe) but there's nearly always a shift to new opportunities. Whether those opportunities are generated close enough for the unemployed to take advantage of them is another matter.