They seem to address that: "This is sharply different from occupations such as agriculture in which labor demand was famously decimated due to mechanization and automation. The difference is that the amount of calories people consume is relatively fixed — even a 25% increase led to the obesity epidemic — whereas the amount of software produced has grown a millionfold."
replyFarm employment itself has decreased 4x compared to 1950 (the % figure overstates it since the total workforce is larger). However if we consider the broader "food" industry employment has increased substantially.
replyThus we may see "coder" employment decrease but the broader "software/tech" industry increase in employment.
nonsense. you are shifting definitions of what "coding" / "producing/operating software" as a profession is.
replyby this logic, if I define "food" industry as sitting on my couch as a "job", with govenment (payouts) my employment, you get "food" industry at employment at 100%!
once you start shifting definitions, it is slippery slope. you can prove anything and argue anything. and it is all loosing meaning. tactic usually employed to confuse and mislead people.
Look up the logging industry. Like 95% of those jobs are automated now, but they like to blame an owl
replyyep. selective usage of stats at their best. how about factories too? conveyer belts? people losing their jobs all the time whenever automation comes in. and we just "hope" for the best they can find jobs or delusional hopefulness swinging into extremes ("be generalist!", "be specialist!", "work in service!", "learn to code!", "learn to mine coal!"), all incoherent. just listen to @pmarca to see how totally lost and incoherent tech leadership is.
replycheck Stripe Press latest on indutrial automation: https://press.stripe.com/origins-of-efficiency