Here:

...as virtually any economist who has studied the empirical evidence of the last two decades knows, the overwhelming cause of wage stagnation in manufacturing has been automation within America, not pressure from cheaper imports. The same dynamic applies today — with the technological change affecting service jobs rather than manufacturing.

...Unfortunately, the issue is further confused by claims that American jobs are being "transferred" abroad. This is usually not the case. When I came to my university 25 years ago, I got a secretary. Today, the new hires get a computer instead. In India, where a secretary costs a small fraction of what one would in New York City but a computer costs more, any Indian professor who asked for a new laptop would probably get a secretary instead. It is simply a matter of economic reality in both places. The hiring of the secretary in India should not be seen as "transferring" a job out of New York.

The fact is, when jobs disappear in America it is usually because technical change has destroyed them, not because they have gone anywhere. In the end, Americans' increasing dependence on an ever-widening array of technology will create a flood of high-paying jobs requiring hands-on technicians, not disembodied voices from the other side of the world.

While I don't quite get his example of the secretary in India not being a "transfer," his main point about technological advances being a main source of job upheaval is accurate. In my line of work, my computer allows me to do, alone, the work that used to required a small team of draftsmen and illustrators when I started out with pencil and vellum. People wonder why productivity keeps going up--I think this is the main reason.

Overseas, human labor is much cheaper. Heck, it used to be cheaper here, too. How many people remember when three people descended on your car and checked the oil, cleaned the windshield, and all the rest when you pulled into a gas station and got a fill? Now I get to fill my own tank, and the entire gas station has a single human employee. How many people remember ushers at theaters? Did you know even the projectors are automated now? In the movie "101 Dalmations" the rank poverty of the main characters was emphasized by the fact that they had to get rid of all the help except the cook*. Geez. Times change. You can think of your own examples.

Now, at the grocery store, I'm now looking at a lane that allows me to scan and pay for my own groceries without assistance. Yech.

Some people might say "good riddance" to the large number of menial jobs replaced by technology and other means. I do, although I miss getting my tires checked for free. But it also raises the bar for what it takes to be employable, and makes it a lot harder for someone without a lot of skills and education (most of the planet) to make a good living.

In the case of tech people, the best bet is to stay up to date with the latest software and methods. This ain't easy, and in the case of 3D graphics systems, it ain't cheap either. I'm barely up to speed on Solidworks, and way behind the curve on 3D Studio. I'm pedalling as fast as I can.

We are moving into somewhat uncharted territory here, and the answers are not going to be found in Ted Kennedy 1930's style "bosses/workers" leftism. Then again, dumping a totally free market on people ice cold may not be the best answer either.

I have always like approaches that point to the horizon, and say, "there is laissez faire market economics. The idea is to map out a reasonable road in that direction. It's not going to happen all at once." Phase things in slowly, but don't stop moving in that direction.

.

*The original Dodi Smith story was a bit more complex, and Mr. Dearly (not Darling) started out rich. People whose kids only know stories from Disney and other movies instead of the original books are, IMO, committing a mild form of child abuse.