https://mru.org/courses/economists-wild/rise-superstar-firms-and-fall-labor-share

In this video, Autor discusses reasons for Labor's falling share of income.
He mentions Technology, Lack of Competition, Superstar Firms.

Then he says "I believe there will be plenty of work." but doesn't support the claim, since, well, he admits it's a belief.

Then a few seconds later he says "There will be plenty of work, we just need to make sure people have the skills to do it" as if his stated prior belief is a fact, and as if acquiring those in-demand skills is even possible for most people.

In the video he doesn't seem to mention the increasing skills required for in-demand jobs.

For laborers, switching costs from obsolete jobs rise as technology advances, since by definition, technology automates increasingly complex jobs.

Working people have living expenses, and often, dependents which college students generally do not have.

A growing percentage of the population might simply not be able to learn, or be able to afford to learn, the skills required to fill the increasingly complex requirements of the new jobs being created.

What happens then? How will price signals travel through the market if only a few people a have most of the money?

As a society, we accept that not everyone will play in the NBA.
Are we ready to accept that, compared to robots, a growing number of workers will simply no longer be skilled enough to be employable?

Because this seems to the direction we are heading.

It may also explain why Capital's share of income is increasing. Switching costs are lower. Firms can replace workers with robots, whose increased profitability more than covers the higher salaries of the few highly skilled workers required to manage the robots.

There are appx 4 million bus, taxi, and truck drivers in the US. Are they all going to learn to code when autonomous vehicles come online?

Are the 9 million retail sales workers going to retrain to program AI at superstar firms? Really?

It would be helpful if this question were addressed along with some evidence supporting the claim that the accelerating pace at which technology is advancing will produce abundant job opportunities roughly in line with skills achievable by the majority of the population.

Cause, looking at the stats, I'm kind of skeptical.

There's a wide range of views on macroeconomics. Right now, this series features the views of two libertarian (right) leaning economists.

It would be better if, say, a conservative economist was paired with a liberal economist, so students could get a better view of the range of perspectives in the field. Without this, the information has a strong bias, but the students aren't necessarily aware of it. It also doesn't represent the discipline as well.

It's better to alert people to where there are matters of debate, present the best case for the differing views and then let students make up their own minds. I'm a classroom teacher, and that's what I strive to do. I don't think it's a big deal for the micro section, but this really matters for macro.

Regardless, thank you for the resource. I am using sections of it with my students now that we're online only during the covid crisis!

What a disappointment this "course" is. The waste of resources and time on cute production values, at the expense of real content, is unbelievable. For example, why should anyone wait several months and watch a couple of elaborately produced animated videos just to learn how to say "all other things being equal" in Latin? For that matter who at this level of learning should have to know any Latin at all? Why should I be amused by a professor wearing a rag around his forehead? The idea that a teacher feels the need to go to these lengths to dumb down a subject is an insult to those who visit these pages to actually learn something. Generally, the MRU videos and courses are superb at presenting concepts and information at an appropriate level for the audience. "Econometrics" doesn't make it at all.