No one's talking about infinite problems except you.

Unemployment is a prety bloody obvious problem that might occur if automation increases.

We also have historical data of jobs that have disappeared with various levels of success in retraining. This time there's legitimate and serious doubts that the employees affected by automation will be able to retrain at all, because several low-skill type of jobs that were retraining possibilities are also targeted by automation.

Automation is at the highest level in history. Unemployment is at record lows in modern peacetime history (with exceptions like Southern Europe which are not hotbeds of automation). If automation inevitably destroys jobs, how can these facts be reconciled?

Unemployment has been around as long as there has been employment. It's not at all obvious that structural unemployment will increase in the future. You could make an equally plausible argument that it will decline. At this point we're all just guessing.

> The number of problems that might occur is infinite. But our resources and time are finite. So we have to prioritize.

I completely agree!

The reason I think this is an issue with thinking about is:

1. Logic and common sense make a good argument for automation eventually replacing all jobs.

2. Most arguments against this amount to "historically this never happened even when people thought it would". This is a weak argument for several reasons (the period we're taking about is small, there's no reason to think history has to repeat itself here, etc).

3. Many smart people think this is a problem, including economists, including people from other fields.

If this doesn't make this problem worth thinking about, what does?