>robots this automation thatAs someone who works in automation (software robotics as opposed to mechanical), the greatest potential for automation in the next few decades is the automation of simple, repetitive tasks (i.e. unskilled labour) like data entry and other boring and soul-crushing work. This frees up employees to work on more complex, creative and satisfying tasks that add more value to the business. It's true that not everyone can upskill and some people will be put out of jobs, but structural unemployment is a very common occurrence anyway (for example, when a mining or construction boom ends and jobs dry up).
This kind of technological revolution has happened many times before and, though it may hurt a bit initially, the long-term benefits for society as a whole are far greater.
>>1997207>Actual population growth is bad for the economy. Except that the single most important (or at least, most commonly agreed upon) measure of economic strength is GDP. A greater population means greater potential to produce, meaning greater GDP.
>greater population growth leads to less education[Citation needed]
>leads to less automatizationSee what I said above about automating unskilled tasks.
>>1997212>Because permanent economic growth is always good for your country.It basically is. Economic growth means more jobs, meaning greater employment rates, meaning more people have money to spend on raising their standard of living.
>>1997225>It is only the economic growth model that makes this difficult in the face of ever-advancing technology.I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but advancements in technology lead to greater productivity which factor into economic growth.
>>1997233Social services and welfare act as automatic economic stabilizers. When the economy goes south and unemployment goes up, welfare payments also increase, which offsets the decrease in spending, which workers still get paid and unemployment doesn't rise further.
