Where once all four types saw growth, the stuff that is routine stagnated back in 1990. This happened because routine labor is easiest for technology to shoulder.
Deep Learning Is Going to Teach Us All the Lesson of Our Lives: Jobs Are for Machines
Scott Santens

How do you prove this assertion? Could it not have also happened because Routine labor is also the cheapest to outsource? Couldn’t Nonroutine labor have become far more profitable to invest in?

Computers have enabled global interdependence, but I would argue not by “shouldering” labor, an interestingly physical choice of words. Instead, by easing the flow of capital from wealthy countries into less wealthy ones, and creating a global production workforce that can do better work for cheaper.

Trying to do global macro-economic analysis of the impact of technology by looking only at the growth (or lack thereof) of American jobs is myopic. America is not a closed system, and it’s labor pool can shrink for many more simplistic and capitalistic reasons than the advance of AI.

Like what you read? Give Ryan Iyengar a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.