Such was the title of a recent Slate article. Its argument:
I understand why people worry about technological unemployment. And I understand why people worry about rising entitlement spending burdens. What I don't understand is why people worry about them both simultaneously. In the technological unemployment world, we'll be able to give everyone a 2013 level of consumption goods with a radically diminished workforce ... The other worry is the opposite of this one. It's that in the future a very large share of our population will be elderly nonworkers and a very large share of our workforce will be dedicated to taking care of elderly nonworkers ("skyrocketing health care costs"), and that consequently younger people's living standards will diminish or stagnate. Either of those things could happen, but they can't both happen.
The article is in a sense true, but I also think its missing something - societal instability. What are the impacts of large-scale unemployment likely to be? From a historical angle war wouldn't seem to be unprecedented. How do you run a society with a small number of wealthy working individuals? Historically its seemed to be the wealthy taking advantage of the opportunity to live a quieter existence on the backs of a impoverished working class. The following seems to highlight the current dilemna:
For the first time in human history, the rich work longer hours than the proletariat.