Every major wave of technological change has been accompanied by fears of mass unemployment, and today's advances in robotics and artificial intelligence are no exception. The statement offers a reassuring answer drawn from history: in the long run, automation creates more jobs than it eliminates. I believe this is probably true at the level of the whole economy, but the statement hides two important problems — the long run may be very long for the workers affected, and the new jobs may not be accessible to the people who lost the old ones.

History provides solid support for the statement's optimism. In 1900, a large share of workers in today's wealthy countries worked in agriculture; mechanisation reduced that share to a few per cent, yet overall employment grew because new industries emerged. The arrival of automated teller machines did not eliminate bank tellers as many predicted; by lowering the cost of running branches, it allowed banks to open more of them, and tellers shifted toward customer service. Automation tends to make goods and services cheaper, which raises demand and creates jobs in areas no one anticipated.

However, the transition can be painful and prolonged. During the Industrial Revolution, wages for many workers stagnated for decades even as the economy grew, and the handloom weavers whose skills were made obsolete rarely found equivalent work. A displaced factory worker in middle age cannot easily become a software engineer, and the communities built around particular industries may decline for a generation. Saying that jobs will appear "in the long run" offers little comfort to those living through the short run.

There are also reasons to think the current wave may differ from earlier ones. Previous technologies mainly replaced physical labour, leaving cognitive tasks to humans. Artificial intelligence increasingly performs tasks such as translation, document review and basic programming, which may affect educated workers who once considered themselves secure. If machines can learn new tasks faster than people can retrain, the historical pattern may not hold as reliably.

For countries such as Bangladesh, whose economy depends heavily on labour-intensive garment manufacturing, the stakes are especially high. If automated sewing becomes cheap enough, millions of jobs, many held by women, could be at risk before new sectors are ready to absorb them.

Whether automation ultimately creates more jobs therefore depends largely on policy. Investment in education and retraining, social protection for displaced workers and support for new industries can shorten the painful transition. Automation may well create more jobs than it destroys, but only deliberate action can ensure that those jobs reach the people who need them.

I agree that automation will probably create more jobs than it destroys in the long run, but many workers may suffer during the change.

In the past, new technology often created new kinds of jobs. For example, when machines replaced farm workers, many people found work in factories and offices instead. Today, computers have created jobs like web designers and data analysts, which did not exist before.

However, workers who lose their jobs to machines may not have the skills for the new jobs. An older factory worker cannot easily become a programmer, so some people may stay unemployed for a long time.

Also, modern artificial intelligence can do some office work, so even educated people may lose jobs.

In conclusion, automation will likely create more jobs overall, but governments should help workers with training so that they can move into new jobs. Schools should also teach skills like problem-solving and creativity, which machines find difficult, so that young people are prepared for the future.

I disagree because robots will take all the jobs.

Machines can work 24 hours and they do not need salary so companies will use machines not people. Many people will not have job.

Maybe some new jobs for fixing robots but it is very few.

So automation will destroy more jobs than it create. Government must stop companies using too many robots.