Research shows every 2nd job might disappear within 2035

[Foucaulf]

Predicting things like this is always a crapshoot. Look at the methodology of the paper CrabCake linked to; the researchers' idea was to identify a few skills they think machine learning/AI is hard to replicate, and then classify the "risk" of an occupation being replaced based off of how much of those skills you find in these occupations. The result is that low-prestige jobs like "craft artists", freelance therapists and nurses are at minor predicted risk of substitution, but jobs like models, referees and tour guides are.

It would be too presumptuous of me to say that referees won't be replaced by machines, ever. But economists on this matter have moved on to the more prevalent question of complementary computer aid, like when referees depend on instant replays. That does not mean referees will be replaced outright, but rather that they remain in order to interpret the scope and nature of their profession. For other jobs - where automation is possible but sounds strange - freelancing may become popular, where individuals service high-income customers.

Work for much of human civilisation has been an integral part of someone's identity. You meet someone new, you ask them what they do, they respond "I'm a ________ ". A good proportion of our surnames (including my own) are a reflection of our ancestor's jobs. The whole of civilisation is built on the division of labour in the form of careers. And now we have to recognise that the idea we've cherished so long - that of "being employed in order to make a living" - is impossible to keep up.

I'm Chinese and my last name doesn't reflect this at all. For more of human history, individuals have been struggling to survive and produce enough food to live past the winter. The people who are most scared by this computerization shift may be those who think they know about history but in fact only know a tiny sliver.

[Foucaulf]

I don't really know how Chinese surnames work. Perhaps it's a European thing, with the ubiquitous Smith, being the obvious example (as well as Shepherd, Miller, Thatcher, Baker etc. )

"freelancing may become popular, where individuals service high-income customers"

That's what I'm thinking. I doubt high-end elite restaurants in London will replace their servers with robots, but the local cheapo chain restaurant where I do part-time work would probably replace me and most of its staff if it could. The elite will still be chauffeured by human drivers; but public transport drivers and cargo movers will probably be gone. The supply of jobs that need doing are drying up, and what remains is becoming so specialised and technological that not everyone really has the capacity to do them. It's especially clear that part-time non-training-intensive work will be worst hit.

That isn't to say we reject progress a la Cassius. But instead the government should find a way to soften the blow.

(I do agree some of the jobs listed in the paper were sort of fishy)

I broadly agree with what you say there (though it is a notable puzzle why it has taken so long for chains to automate any of its labour). The real problem for me is that those whose jobs are made redundant will take the time to borrow funds and try to create something on their own, but find out that no one values their goods that much. I'm thinking of people who are better artists than fry cooks, but can't earn a living doing the former and can't find a job doing the latter.

The state cannot simply "soften the blow" and pray people will be matched up to a new job sometime soon. There has to be directed action which is more drastic.