# MIT Technology Review says shift focus from job-loss forecasts to responses [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/mit-technology-review-says-shift-focus-from-job-loss-forecasts-db13df0e) MIT Technology Review published this account on July 3, 2018, about a Center for Global Development report on automation and jobs. The report’s authors, Lukas Schlogl and Andy Sumner, argue that attention should move from estimating how many jobs automation will eliminate to addressing its effects. The article says studies made widely varying predictions, while the authors argued that significant change could be expected without predicting its exact scale. They said automation would likely contribute to stagnant wages and greater inequality; these are their forecasts, not established outcomes. The article describes possible responses as difficult: retraining may be hard when needed skills change, basic income may face political obstacles, and discouraging automation could raise prices. It says the authors offered no solutions of their own and called for further investment in finding an answer. What approaches, if any, could address these concerns without relying on precise forecasts of job loss? Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source MIT Technology Review · Article Original source date: Jul 3, 2018 (2018-07-03T22:54:56Z). Date basis: Date from the publisher’s own records, through its API. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-10-29T00:33:06.385Z. First observed: 2026-10-25T03:22:04.379Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-25T03:23:38.469Z. - [Time to stop worrying about robots taking our jobs and start dealing with it](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Limits Text as retrieved on 2026-10-25; originally published 2018-07-03T22:54:56Z. The publisher page is marked as edited after publication; the retrieved text may include later additions, which cannot be identified from this evidence. ## Open question What approaches, if any, could address the authors’ concerns without relying on precise forecasts of job loss? ## Source-stated The article says the report calls for shifting attention from predicting job losses to addressing the issue. > argues that we need to shift our attention from guessing how many jobs will be eliminated to trying to fix the issue. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source-stated The article says the report’s authors argue that significant change can be expected without predicting its exact scale. > we can be certain significant change is coming without needing to predict the exact level of impact. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source-stated The article reports that Schlogl and Sumner forecast stagnant wages and increased inequality as likely effects of automation. > They say automation will likely cause wages to stagnate and will increase inequality. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source-stated The article says the authors see difficulties with retraining, basic income, and discouraging automation, and propose no solutions of their own. > the authors don’t propose any solutions of their own but, naturally, encourage further investment to find an answer. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source and contributor context MIT Technology Review · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media retrieval status: unchecked. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: b1f33879-b0dc-dfaf-c14f-dc6ea85f6a17. Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-10-29T00:30:44.891Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge\_screen. Observation: 53cf2c112f452da19cb93a0909490881b41c077b3287b1543595995c75ad3697. Source text hash: d5bfa7964dbd69b006cb6134f0fa45bd53511b2632e41a34b5bf6f19be3d8674. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-10-29T00:33:06.385Z MIT Technology Review published this account on July 3, 2018, about a Center for Global Development report on automation and jobs. The report’s authors, Lukas Schlogl and Andy Sumner, argue that attention should move from estimating how many jobs automation will eliminate to addressing its effects. The article says studies made widely varying predictions, while the authors argued that significant change could be expected without predicting its exact scale. They said automation would likely contribute to stagnant wages and greater inequality; these are their forecasts, not established outcomes. The article describes possible responses as difficult: retraining may be hard when needed skills change, basic income may face political obstacles, and discouraging automation could raise prices. It says the authors offered no solutions of their own and called for further investment in finding an answer. What approaches, if any, could address these concerns without relying on precise forecasts of job loss? ## Original source MIT Technology Review · Article Original source date: Jul 3, 2018 (2018-07-03T22:54:56Z). Date basis: Date from the publisher’s own records, through its API. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-10-29T00:33:06.385Z. First observed: 2026-10-25T03:22:04.379Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-25T03:23:38.469Z. - [Time to stop worrying about robots taking our jobs and start dealing with it](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Limits Text as retrieved on 2026-10-25; originally published 2018-07-03T22:54:56Z. The publisher page is marked as edited after publication; the retrieved text may include later additions, which cannot be identified from this evidence. ## Open question What approaches, if any, could address the authors’ concerns without relying on precise forecasts of job loss? ## Source-stated The article says the report calls for shifting attention from predicting job losses to addressing the issue. > argues that we need to shift our attention from guessing how many jobs will be eliminated to trying to fix the issue. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source-stated The article says the report’s authors argue that significant change can be expected without predicting its exact scale. > we can be certain significant change is coming without needing to predict the exact level of impact. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source-stated The article reports that Schlogl and Sumner forecast stagnant wages and increased inequality as likely effects of automation. > They say automation will likely cause wages to stagnate and will increase inequality. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source-stated The article says the authors see difficulties with retraining, basic income, and discouraging automation, and propose no solutions of their own. > the authors don’t propose any solutions of their own but, naturally, encourage further investment to find an answer. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/03/66708/time-to-stop-worrying-about-robots-taking-our-jobs-and-start-dealing-with-it/) ## Source and contributor context MIT Technology Review · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media retrieval status: unchecked. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: b1f33879-b0dc-dfaf-c14f-dc6ea85f6a17. Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-10-29T00:30:44.891Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge\_screen. Observation: 53cf2c112f452da19cb93a0909490881b41c077b3287b1543595995c75ad3697. Source text hash: d5bfa7964dbd69b006cb6134f0fa45bd53511b2632e41a34b5bf6f19be3d8674. ### passed — 2026-10-29T00:30:44.891Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: b1f33879-b0dc-dfaf-c14f-dc6ea85f6a17 attribution — pass: The body correctly attributes the argument to the Center for Global Development report and its authors, Lukas Schlogl and Andy Sumner, as reported by MIT Technology Review. The title attributes the shift-focus stance to MIT Technology Review. That is defensible because the publisher's own headline takes the same stance. > The paper’s authors, Lukas Schlogl and Andy Sumner, argue that we can be certain significant change is coming summary — pass: The summary accurately covers each part of the article: the call to shift focus, the varying predictions, the forecasts on wages and inequality, the difficulties with each response, and the absence of proposed solutions. Terms such as retraining and basic income are widely understood. The question follows from the source and is a genuine open issue, not a leading claim. > A bit frustratingly, the authors don’t propose any solutions of their own but, naturally, encourage further investment to find an answer. date — pass: July 3, 2018 matches the UTC calendar day of originalPublished. The page was edited after publication in 2022, but every claim relies on article body text that is plainly part of the original piece. The Most Popular sidebar contains later material, such as a reference to ten years after AlphaGo. The reading does not use or rely on it. Forecasts are framed as the authors' forecasts, and this is a publisher page, so no archive disclosure is needed. > They say automation will likely cause wages to stagnate and will increase inequality. support — pass: Each claim is directly supported by verbatim article text. Rendering 'cause' as 'contribute to' slightly softens the source and does not misstate it. The reading adds no unsupported benefits, costs or inferences. The cited passages are original body text, not the post-publication sidebar. > It’s hard to retrain workers when the needed skills are unpredictable and frequently changing. Basic income would face a long uphill political battle. media — pass: No media was selected and no verified media candidates were supplied, so leaving the media empty is appropriate. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/db13df0e3b66449f7b2653ebdb0662955d85649d8db0a0a269aa87dba0717289/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/mit-technology-review-says-shift-focus-from-job-loss-forecasts-db13df0e.json)