From http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/autor-autor/

> ...the influential analysis of Autor, Levy, and Murnane a few years later, which argued that the crucial difference in terms of possible replacement of humans by machines was one of routine versus non-routine, rather than white-collar versus blue-collar, and that computerization was if anything likely to increase demand for some “low-skill” occupations and reduce demand for some traditionally well-paying white-collar jobs:

Thanks gwern! Fantastic reference.

I thought it was germane, and much more interesting than the mish-mash of warmed-over Marxist invective that is the OP. (Once again, Evernote comes in handy in enabling me to find a ref I read long ago.)

Thanks again, I am the OP, and the study referenced by Krugman clearly supports my mish-mash of warmed-over Marxist invective, so it's much appreciated.

Can we please keep things like this of HN?

Socialists have been proven wrong so many times and the article is even internally inconsistent (and provides nothing of value).

Thanks.

  > Socialists have been proven wrong so many times

Can we keep blanket statements off of HN? This statement:

1) Doesn't say what socialists have been proven wrong about.

2) Claims that socialists have been proven wrong 'many times' without bothering to back that up with any sort of references.

This comes across as a largely inflammatory statement that is not conducive to an actual discussion.

Can we please keep comments like this off of HN? Know-nothings have been proven wrong so many times and the comment neither makes a logical argument, nor provides anything of value.

People who comment on comments commenting on comments have also been proven wrong many times, and should probably not be allowed on HN either.

Agreed! In fact, since many wrong things have been posted to HN, only people who don't post on HN should be permitted to post to HN. Except when they have been proven wrong too!