Nedaudz paplasinot diskusiju.

1.Kur ir pierādīta inequality augšana attīstītajās valstīs? Kā arī tas, ka to izraisa tieši tehnoloģija / automatizācija.

Avots nav vislabakais, bet prieks iesakuma pietiks:

2013 gads - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/report-inc…

2017 gads - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/11/inequality-world-econo…

Seit nedaudz no OECD

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm

Veel var palasit CITI bank report - TECHNOLOGY AT WORK v2.0

three primary
reasons why we believed the impact of technology change on the economy was
different this time: (1) the pace of change has accelerated; (2) the scope of
technological change is increasing; and (3) unlike innovation in the past, the
benefits of technological change are not being widely shared — real median wages
have fallen behind growth in productivity and inequality has increased.

2.Kur ir pierādīts, ka tehnoloģijas "iznīcināja vidusšķiru un padarīju sabiedrību polarizētu"?

The big data revolution and improvements in machine learning algorithms means that more occupations can be replaced by technology, including tasks once thought
quintessentially human such as navigating a car or deciphering handwriting.

Veel var palasiit -
1) The Polarization of Job Opportunities
in the U.S. Labor Market
Implications for Employment and Earnings
David Autor, MIT Department of Economics and National Bureau of Economic Research
April 2010
2) The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs
and the Polarization of the US Labor Market†
By David H. Autor and David Dorn*

Viss protams nevar buut melns un balts, nav arii taa, ka visi darbi tiks aizvietoti un to pieraada shis article ( Robots and Automation
May Not Take Your Desk
Job After All. Harvard Business Review)

Ir protams veel daudz dazadi raksti, publikacijas par konkreto teemu kurus varetu seit salikt, bet pietiks.

Saprotams, ka taada augsta ranga profesionalim kaa Jums ir gruuti uznemt kritiku no kaut kada komentetaja ar vardu Riho, bet sajaa gadijumaa esat noshavis greizi, jo nav pietiekami ruupigi izpetiti visi aspekti.