But for any job that requires training there is a delay between raising wages and the labor supply expanding. Granted, for truckers it's not very long, but for something like software developers it can be half a decade, in which time those who choose to pursue expensive training in hope of eschewing a high-demand job also risk graduating into another burst bubble.
Also, you're just moving unemployment from one category to another. There's unemployment in every field. The fundamental issue is, with automation we no longer need everyone to work. As robotics advances the problem will just get worse. We've never, ever needed as many engineers as we've needed laborers and assembly-line workers. Making them all into skilled labor is absurd for many reasons, not least of which is, we don't need that many engineers.
> Making them all into skilled labor is absurd for many reasons, not least of which is, we don't need that many engineers.
I'm not sure "we don't need that many engineers" is defensible. Who's to say how many are "needed" or not? I see no reason why the world couldn't have many more engineers (and scientists) working and still doing useful work.
Seriously. How do people look around at the world today and think: Yup, everything is peachy. Let's just sustain this, folks, we're good.
As long as there's a third world, we're nowhere close to having enough of anything, including engineers. There's still a shit ton of work to be done just to get the world to an acceptable level for all people.
Employment statistics say this. There is already unemployment in engineering. Maybe long-term in a socialist or planned society we could make use of scads of new engineers; but not in the society we have now.
