A critique of “Into the unknown” by The Economist

Nowadays, the change in production technology make many workers worry because of its effects. However, almost of them forget that the changes that bring bad effects (destroy jobs) also make good ones (create new jobs). It may be a chance for someone but be challenge for others, we do not know. All predictions can become true or not. It depends on supply and demand in the labor market, possibility of workers to adapt with the change of the world. In “Into the unknown” The Economist states that “this change in production technology has the same effects as automation”. Actually, many firms and companies fire their workers and replace them by new machines or foreign workers with lower-paid. Many workers who is fired think that the change in production technology is terrible because it takes their jobs away. However, according to the economist “What the worriers always forget is that the same changes in production technology that destroy jobs also create new ones”. The reason here is that when companies replace their workers by new machines or lower-paid workers, the cost decrease while the profit increase. It causes the growth of demand for new goods and services then creates new jobs that have not been invented yet. Furthermore, these changes require economies renew workers to create more value. On the other hand, The Economist states that all predictions can be hazardous because the effects on jobs of these changes depend on many factors such as supply and demand in labor market, readiness and ability of workers to retrain.