California State University Summer Algebra Institute: Fill & Download for Free

Here's what I found. I know this might be more than you were asking, but I figured if anyone else is interested this is good information to share.Universities Offering Inmate College CoursesALABAMAAlabama Prison Arts and Education Project (APEAP)http://www.auburn.edu/apaepAuburn UniversityKyes Stevens, Founder/[email protected];[email protected] Served: Incarcerated students in Alabama state prisonsProgram Description: The Alabama Prison Arts + Education Project is a program dedicated to providing access to sustained and quality educational experiences in the arts and humanities to incarcerated students in Alabama.The program believes that it is important for incarcerated people to gain a quality education, and also to build a relationship with learning that will continue to grow for the rest of their lives. The goals of APAEP have always been to place rich creative and intellectual opportunities into Alabama’s prisons.ARIZONARio Salado CollegeIncarcerated Re-Entry2323 West 14th StreetTempe, AZ 85281Phone: 480-517-8345Toll-free: [email protected] Served: Rio Salado College has partnered with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) to teach the incarcerated population the skills necessary for integration into society upon release.Program Description: Rio Salado College offers many distance learning classes that provide the incarcerated population an opportunity for college credit that lead to certificates and degrees. Rio offers more than 90 classes in printbase and/or mixed media format. There are classes that meet General Education requirements such as English Composition, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, and Humanities.CALIFORNIAPrison University Project (PUP)Prison University ProjectPost Office Box 492San Quentin, CA 94964Jody Lewen, Executive [email protected], ext 3Population Served: Any San Quentin State Prison inmate who is classified as general population and holds either a GED or high school diploma is eligible to enroll in the College Program.Program Description: Program offers courses in the humanities, social sciences, math, and science, leading to an Associate’s degree, as well as math, science, and foreign language courses required for transfer to UC and Cal State schools. All instructors work as volunteers. Prison University Project has five paid staff people. The degree is offered through Patten University, a small independent university in Oakland, CA.UC Santa Cruz Project for Inmate Education (UCSC PIE)Mark [email protected] Served: Incarcerated students in the Santa Cruz county jailProgram Description: UCSC PIE is an organization founded by members of the UCSC astronomy and physics departments that are dedicated to providing free education to incarcerated people in local jails. UCSC PIE started operating in spring 2009 with an algebra class for students at the Santa Cruz County Jail.COLORADOAdams State College Prison College ProgramJames Bullington (Coordinator), Prison College [email protected]@yahoo.com303-241-0550Population Served: Incarcerated students throughout Colorado and the United StatesProgram Description: At Adams State College we know how important education is to all individuals, especially for those who happen to be incarcerated. For over nine years Adams State College has worked extensively inside Colorado prisons offering on-site face-to face courses. During this time we have also worked with thousands of prisoners throughout the United States by helping them obtain their dream of a college education. ASC is committed to addressing the specific needs of incarcerated students by offering the following benefits:GEORGIAThe Certificate in Theological Studies at Lee Arrendale State for Women (CTS)Dr. Liz Bounds, Program [email protected] Zappa, Program [email protected] Bishop, Chaplain at Arrendale PrisonPopulation Served: Incarcerated women at Lee Arrendale State Prison with high-school diploma or equivalentProgram Description: CTS is designed to offer selected incarcerated students academic theological instruction that is ecumenical in scope and to train them to serve as lay religious leaders both in prison and after their release. The program’s other major goal is to provide unique teaching opportunities to seminary and doctoral students from the participating institutions as well as formative experience for congregational leadership for M.Div. studentsUniversity of GeorgiaOffice of Academic ProgramsIndependent and Distance Learning ProgramGeorgia Center for Continuing Education, Suite 193Athens, GA 30602-3603Phone: 706-542-3243Toll-free: 800-877-3243http://www.distance.uga.edu/Mercer [email protected] Justice Projecthttp://www.educationjustice.net/Population Served: Incarcerated men at Danville Correctional Center who have completed a minimum of 60 hours of coursework in the lower-level courses.Program Description: The Education Justice Project of the University of Illinois offers advanced undergraduate courses to qualified men incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center, a men’s medium-high security prison about forty miles from the Urbana-Champaign campus. EJP’s mission is to create a model university-in-prison program that demonstrates the transformative impacts of higher education upon incarcerated people, their families, the communities from which they come, and society as a whole. The Illinois Department of Corrections makes GED courses available at Danville and other state prisons. Danville Area Community College(DACC) has offered lower-division courses. The University of Illinois’s program picks up upon where DACC leaves off; offering upper-division courses to ones who seek to continue their education past the Associates’ level.INDIANAPurdue University North Central at Westville Correctional FacilityDavid CrumDirector, Correctional Education Programs(219) [email protected] BorawskiPost-Secondary Education Coordinator(219) [email protected] Served: Incarcerated students at Westville Correctional FacilityProgram Description: Academic Program leading to Associate Degree in Organizational Leadership & Supervision; Bachelor’s Degree in Liberal StudiesOakland City University Prison Ministries ProjectsContacts:Dr. Bernard Marley: [email protected] Served: Incarcerated students in Indiana correctional facilitiesBranchville Correctional FacilityMadison Correctional FacilityMiami Correctional FacilityRockville Correctional FacilityNewcastle Correctional FacilityIndiana Women’s PrisonProgram Description: Preparing people to serve others — OCU’s motto is: Enter to Learn, Go forth to ServeInside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Plainfield & Indianapolis)Steve HinnefeldIUB University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Facilities Served: Plainfield Re-Entry Educational Facility and Indiana’s Women’s Prison - Incarcerated students and IUPUI studentsProgram Description: UPUI faculty members Hyatt and Roger Jarjoura completed Inside-Out instructor training in the summer of 2006. Hyatt is an associate professor of anthropology in the School of Liberal Arts. Jarjoura is an associate professor of criminal justice in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. The first Inside-Out class in Indiana took place at the Plainfield Re-Entry Educational Facility in 2007.Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Bloomington)Instructor [email protected] Served: Incarcerated students at Putnamville Correctional FacilityProgram Description: Micol Seigel, IU Bloomington assistant professor of African American and African Diaspora Studies, completed Inside-Out Instructor Training in the summer of 2009 and launched the first IU Bloomington Inside-Out course this spring with the help of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis faculty members Susan Hyatt and Roger Jarjoura. The course is the first involving IU Bloomington in the Inside-Out program, which brings together students and incarcerated people — “outside” students and “inside” students — for a college-level course in which people from different backgrounds learn together as peers.Grace College Prison Extension ProgramJohn Teevan, [email protected] Krynock, [email protected] Ramsey, [email protected] Green, [email protected] Served: Incarcerated maximum-security individuals within the Indiana Department of CorrectionsProgram Description: The Prison Extension Program is part of the institution’s School of Adult and Community Education and operates as a contractor with the State of Indiana’s Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide post-secondary education to qualifying incarcerated people.Corrections Education Program (CEP)Indiana State UniversityKathleen WhiteInterim Director and Coordinator (Putnamville)Phone: [email protected] Served: Incarcerated individuals within the Indiana Department of Correction’s Putnamville Correctional Facility, Plainfield Correctional Facility, Rockville Correctional Facility, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, and the Terre Haute Federal Correctional ComplexProgram Description: The mission of the Correction Education Program is to extend the programs and services of the University to support individuals in Indiana’s Correctional Facilities. The ISU mission applies to two specific student groups, benefiting both correctional staff and approved incarcerated populations as identified by the Department of Corrections.Ball State University Correctional Education ProgramOnline and Distance EducationCarmichael Hall, Room 200Ball State UniversityMuncie, IN 47306Ted WardDirector, Correctional Education [email protected]: 765-285-1593Fax: 765-285-7161Population Served:Incarcerated men from Pendleton Correctional FacilityIOWAGrinnell Liberal Arts in Prison ProgramA private liberal arts college in IowaEmily Guenther, Program [email protected] Served: Incarcerated students in the Newton Correctional FacilityProgram Description: “As a teaching and learning community, the College holds that knowledge is a good to be pursued both for its own sake and for the intellectual, moral, and physical well-being of individuals and of society at large.” — Grinnell College Mission StatementThe Liberal Arts in Prison Program extends these convictions to incarcerated students at local prisons in order to engage them in experiences of new knowledge, respectful exchange of ideas, and progressive levels of achievement. The college believes this program supports the work of corrections staff to protect communities and transform lives, making the prisons safer, and preparing incarcerated people to return renewed to their families and communities.KANSASLansing Correctional Facility Program at Donnelly CollegeDonnelly [email protected] (Assistant to President’s Office)Population Served: Students of any category – Lansing Correctional Facility;minimum, medium or maximum security are eligible, as long as they have a record of good behavior.Program Description: Donnelly College offers an on-site Associate Degree program to incarcerated students of the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas. As a Catholic institution, it believes that the program has a Christian aim to assist prisoners and directly complements the school’s founding mission “to provide education and community services with personal concern for the needs and abilities of each student, especially those who might not otherwise be served.”After earning accreditation for a second, satellite campus in 2001, Donnelly began offering classes at Lansing Correctional Facility. Since then, more than 325 students have taken courses: 14 have earned associate degrees and 155 (or 48% of former students) have been released from prison.LOUISIANALouisiana State UniversityIndependent & Distance Learning1225 Pleasant HallBaton Rouge, LA 70803Phone: 225-578-2500Toll Free: 800-234-5046Population Served: IncarceratedStudents of any federal correctional of state detention facility nationwide; as long as they have a record of good behavior.Dr. Norri Grubbs, John RobsonPopulation Served: Incarcerated students AT Angola Prison who scored satisfactorily on a pre-college exam given by NOBTS staff, and additionally hold a high school diploma or a GED.Program Description: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS), Judson Baptist Association, and the Louisiana State Penitentiary planned and organized a program of theological training for church leaders at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola during the summer of 1995 and was established in August of that same year.MAINEMaine State PrisonGary Upham, Principal807 Cushing RoadWarren, ME 04864Phone: [email protected] Served:Incarcerated individuals within Maine State PrisonProgram Description:The Maine State Prison Education Department offers a wide variety of academic and life skill programs. Two professional certified teachers oversee the academic programs and two days a week a computer lab is available. Available services included GED tutoring in math and English, high school completion courses through PLATO, art, music, and ABE tutoring on a weekly basis. We also have outside programs and tutors who work with small groups and individuals. A full time college program and vocational options are also part of the education department.MASSACHUSETTSBoston University Prison Education ProgramPrison Education Program | Boston UniversityJenifer Drew, Ph.D., DirectorBoston University Prison Education Programc/o Undergraduate Student ServicesDepartment of Applied Social Science808 Commonwealth AvenueBoston, MA617-353-2000, direct: [email protected] Served: Incarcerated men and women in BU program at MCI/Norfolk; MCI/Framingham; MCI/Bay State and a few Harvard sociology studentsProgram Description: The Boston University Prison Education Program was founded by labor organizer, tenant activist, and poet Elizabeth Barker. Together with BU President John Silber, Barker worked to have the Boston University Prison Education Program offer its first credit-bearing college courses at MCI/Norfolk, in 1972. In 1989, the Prison Education Program expanded to a second medium-security prison for men (MCI/Bay State), and by 1991 included MCI/Framingham Massachusetts’ only penal institution for women. BU continues to be a nationally recognized leader for its contribution to the lives of prisoners in the Program, and by extension, its contribution to the prisons they inhabit, the families they left behind, and the communities to which they will return.Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Northampton & Ludlow)International Headquarters of The Inside-Out Prison Exchange ProgramSimone Davis, Kristin Bumiller, and Martha Saxton (current professors in the program)Program Description: Amherst College and Mount Holyoke college professors Kristin Bumiller and Simone Davis adopted the Inside-Out model developed by Lori Pompa, who began the program to try to remove the boundaries created by classism, racism, and the stigma attached to incarceration. Under the Inside-Out model, college students and incarcerated students with all varying levels of prior education can enroll in courses at local jails. There are equal numbers of inside and outside students.Population Served: People who are incarcerated at Hampden County Correctional System and Hampshire County House of Corrections (also currently exploring expanding the program to other county facilities in the region)MICHIGANPrison Creative Arts Project (PCAP)Prison Creative Arts ProjectThe Prison Creative Arts ProjectUniversity of Michigan3187 Angell HallAnn Arbor, MI [email protected] Alexander, Founder4210 Eastgate DriveAnn Arbor, MI 48103734-426-4819Program Description: Founded in 1990, The Prison Creative Arts Project (PCAP) is committed to original work in the arts in Michigan correctional facilities, juvenile facilities, urban high schools, and communities across the state. PCAP’s process is guided by respect and a spirit of collaboration in which vulnerability, risk and improvisation lead to discovery. PCAP make possible the spaces in which the voices and visions of the incarcerated can be expressed. The program is housed in the Department of English language and Literature, and supported by English and the School of Art and Design at the University of Michigan. The following is taken from the program’s mission statement, “we believe that everyone has the capacity to create art. Art is necessary for individual and societal growth, connection and survival. It should be accessible to everyone. The values that guide on process are respect, collaboration in which vulnerability, risk, and improvisation lead to discovery and resilience, persistence, patience, love, and laughter.”Correctional Facilities Served: individuals incarcerated in Michigan (Michigan prisons and juvenile facilities), and the formerly incarceratedMINNESOTAInside-Out Prison Exchange Program (St. Paul)Jennifer J WingrenAssociate ProfessorSchool of Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice763-657-3760LECJECSt. Paul, [email protected] Served: The incarcerated at Dakota County JailProgram Description: The School of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice has held two successful classes at the Dakota County Law Enforcement Center. The Inside-Out program brings college students and incarcerated people together in a seminar setting to study criminal justice issues.The Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program is a dynamic partnership between institutions of higher learning and correctional systems. It is designed to deepen the conversation about and transform approaches to understanding crime, justice, freedom, inequality and other issues of social concern.Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Owatonna)Steele County Human ServicesKelly Harder, director507-444-7510kelly.harder@[email protected] Served: The incarcerated at Steele County Detention CenterProgram Description: Kristin Klamm-Doneen, an ethics professor at Riverland, adapted Lori Pompa’s Inside-Out national program to fit the needs of the county facility. She presented the concept to county officials who were receptive to the idea. The program was approved in fall 2008 and had its first offering in January, with a for-credit course called Philosophy of Social Justice.Minnesota Correctional Education Foundation (MCEF)1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200St. Paul, MN 55108651- 361-7200School Improvement and AccountabilityGoal 1: Create a learner-focused education system designed to close the achievement gap and produce mastery learning for all DOC offenders.Quality Program and ServicesGoal 2: Develop and deliver all DOC programs at the highest quality level. Transition SuccessGoal 3: Prepare each student for a successful transition to school, the workplace and life in their community.Leveraging TechnologyGoal 4: Integrate technology into the education program and improve operations, delivery of programs and support services.Correctional Education PresenceGoal 5: Advance correctional education’s presence through active collaboration, beneficial partnerships and enhanced public awareness.Facility LocationsMCF-Faribault, 1101 Linden Lane, Fraribault, MN 55021, 507-334-0700MCF-Lino Lakes, 7525 Fourth Avenue, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, 651-717-6100MCF-Oak Park Heights, 5329 Osgood Avenue North, Stillwater, MN 55082, 651-779-1400MCF-Rush City, 7600 525th Street, Rush City, MN 55069, 320-358-0400MCF-Saint Cloud, 2305 Minnesota Blvd SE, St. Cloud, MN 55379, 320-240-3000MCF-Shakopee (Women), 1010 West 6th Avenue, Shakopee, MN 55379, 952-496-4440MCF-Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street, Bayport, MN 55003, 651-779-2700MCF-Willow River/Moose Lake, 1000 Lake Shore Drive, Moose Lake, MN 55767, 218-485-5000MISSISSIPPIUniversity of Mississippi – “Ole Miss”Mailing Address:Ole Miss OnlineP.O. Box 1848University, MS 38677Physical Address:617 All-American Drive371 Martindale Student Services Center, Suite MUniversity, MS 38677phone: 662-915-1267Fax: 662-915-1221Online degree programs: [email protected] Courses: [email protected] are committed to providing quality online teaching and learning opportunities at the University of Mississippi. The goal of Ole Miss Online is to:Partner with academic departments to identify and develop comprehensive distance education programs and to increase course offerings,· Empower Ole Miss colleagues to create quality online courses and continually enhance online courses through faculty development that fosters personal and professional growth,· Utilize technologies as tools to enhance academic instructions and connect people within the university community,· Increase awareness of online learning to the Ole Miss community, and· Provide high quality support services for faculty and studentMISSOURISaint Louis University Prison ProgramKenneth L. Parker, Director, Prison [email protected] Gould (Assistant Professor, Communication)[email protected] Johnston (Associate Professor, English)[email protected],314-.977-.3013Co-directors Prison Arts and Education Program.Population Served: Incarcerated men and prison staff at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional CenterProgram Description: Theology professor Kenneth Parker, Ph.D., founded the SLU Prison Program after watching a story on 60 Minutes about a similar effort at Bard College in New York. With the approval of University administrators and state officials — as well as funding from the Incarnate Word Foundation — SLU began offering a certificate in theological studies to incarcerated people in early 2008. Fifteen incarcerated students completed the five-course program in May 2010.University of MissouriParent Link (Parenting Information for Incarcerated Parents)College of EducationPhone Toll-free: 800-552-8522NEW JERSEYPrison Teaching InitiativePrinceton University - HomeAndrew NurkinSenior Program CoordinatorPace Center, Princeton UniversityPrinceton, NJ [email protected] KnappProfessor of Astrophysical SciencesPrinceton UniversityPrinceton, NJ [email protected] Served: Incarcerated individuals from the Garden State Youth Correctional Facility and Albert C. Wagner Youth Correctional FacilitProgram Description: Mark Krumholz started the program, now called Prison Teaching Initiative, partly because of his experiences as a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley. He taught math and science courses at San Quentin State Prison in a long running program that offered about a dozen classes per semester. PTI has grown slowly since, and now offers 9-10 courses per semester which supplement other courses taught by paid instructors from Mercer County Community College. The College of New Jersey has recently joined the partnership.Partnership for Religion and Education in Prison (PREP)Drew UniversityMargaret Quern AtkinsPREP CoordinatorDrew Theological [email protected] Served: Incarcerated students from Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women (Clinton); Northern State Prison for Men (Newark) and theological students from DrewProgram Description: PREP is a theological educational program that creates opportunities for a joint theological learning environment between theological students and students within State correctional facilities. Based in several models of prison educational programming across the country, PREP forges new partnerships between places of theological learning, organizations with educational programs in the prisons, and correctional institutions. PREP uses contextual education and tenets of practical theology as it offers Drew’s theological students, faculty, and practicing ministers a chance to connect with the outside world through meaningful pedagogical methods. Through combined classrooms, a diverse student body can interact and engage with one another in meaningful academic discourse.The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) Center for Prison Outreach and EducationCelia [email protected]@tcnj.eduPopulation Served: Juvenile and adult “youth” offenders under age 35 at targeted facilities such as Albert C. Wagner Youth Correctional Facility, Garden State Youth Correctional Facility (both in Bordentown NJ), and other central NJ detention centers. The population of the principal facilities, AC Wagner and Garden State, consists of males ages 18-35 at minimum, medium, and maximum levels of security.Program Description: TCNJ Center for Prison Outreach and Education coordinates and oversees new Associates degree tracks and a year-round, non-credit academic enrichment and tutoring program for incarcerated people of Albert C. Wagner Youth Correctional Facility and Garden State Youth Correctional Facility. It provides varied educational experiences in other penal institutions in central New Jersey, as well.NEW YORKNew York Theological Seminary Master’s of Professional Studies ProgramNew York Theological SeminaryDale Irvin (President of NYTS)[email protected] Served: Incarcerated people serving at Sing Sing, Green Haven, Arthurkill, Fishkill, Mid-Orange, Eastern, and Woodbourne Correctional Facilities possessing a high school diploma or its equivalent and are engaged in ministry or community service while incarcerated. All faiths are welcome.Program Description: In 1981, Ed Muller, a Pastor and chaplain at Green Haven Prison and KarelBoersma, a pastor and volunteer at Green Haven, came to Dr. Webber with a request that the seminary create a curricular extension program for incarcerated Christians and Muslims of strong faith who had a desire to provide pastoral care inside of the prison. They claimed that pastoral care needs were so great that outside chaplains could not address them all. Dr. Webber agreed and collaborated with Rev. Dr. Earl Moore, Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections, responsible for Ministerial and Family Services, and an NYTS alumnus, to create a Master in Professional Studies (MPS) degree for incarcerated people.Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Poughkeepsie)Program Website:N/AVassar professors:Mary [email protected] [email protected] Inside-Out Program at Taconic is coordinated through Hudson Link for Higher Education in PrisonPopulation Served: Incarcerated women Taconic Correctional Facility for Women and Vassar studentsProgram Description: The two professors, along with 10 Vassar students, traveled from Poughkeepsie to the medium security women’s prison in Bedford Hills, Westchester County, once a week during the spring 2009 semester to join with 12 incarcerated students for a two-and-a-half hour class.Unique Features: The course marks the first time that the DOCS in New York State has permitted a mixed classroom of traditional college students with the incarcerated as part of a curriculum for college credit.Hudson Link for Higher Education in PrisonHome | www.hudsonlink.orgSean Pica, Executive [email protected]. Box 862Ossining, NY [email protected] Link for Higher Education in PrisonPopulation Served: Men and women who are incarcerated at Fishkill, Sing Sing and Sullivan Correctional Facilities for Men and Taconic Correctional Facility for Women; requirements include either a GED or high school diploma. We also assist Hudson Link graduates after they are released from prison.Program Description: Hudson Link for Higher Education in Prison provides college education, life skills and re-entry support to incarcerated men and women to help them make a positive impact on their own lives, their families and communities, resulting in lower rates of recidivism, incarceration and poverty.Unique Features: Hudson Link has expanded its programming to include a pre-college program to prepare potential students for the rigors of obtaining a college degree. Hudson Link Alumni work as tutors and mentors to the pre-college students.The Consortium of the Niagara FrontierRobert Hausrath, [email protected] Served: People who are incarcerated in Attica Correctional Facility and the Wyoming Correctional Facility. Students must have a GED or a high school diploma and must pass a basics skills exam to be accepted into the program. While enrolled, students must maintain a 2.0 GPA in their courses to continue to participate in the program.Program Description: Established in 1975 at Attica Correctional Facility, a maximum security prison for men in Wyoming County, New York, the Consortium of the Niagara Frontier is one of the oldest PSCE programs in New York State. Offering Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees in Social Sciences or Humanities, the Consortium consists of Niagara University, Canisius College, and Daemen College. In 2001, the Consortium left Attica and now operates only at Wyoming Correctional Facility, a medium security prison for men also located in the town of Attica.Cornell Prison Education ProgramCornell Prison Education ProgramDr. James (Jim) Schecter, Executive [email protected] Prison Education ProgramRobert Turgeon, Faculty [email protected] Served: Incarcerated women of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility; Applicants to the program take placement examinations in basic mathematics, reading comprehension, and essay writing. Depending upon their scores, they are either placed into non-credit preparatory courses or matriculate directly into credit-bearing classes.Program Description: The Cornell Prison Education Program was established to provide college courses to incarcerated students at a maximum and medium security prison in upstate New York, and to engage Cornell faculty and students with the vital issue of the country’s burgeoning incarceration population. The Cornell Prison Education Program is dedicated to supporting incarcerated persons’ academic ambitions and preparation for successful re-entry. We believe that Cornell faculty and student engagement as instructors at correctional facilities manifests Ezra Cornell’s commitment to founding an institution where “any person can find instruction in any study.”Population Served: Incarcerated men and corrections staff at Auburn and Cayuga Correctional FacilitiesBedford Hills College ProgramAileen Baumgartner, [email protected] ext. 4514Program Description: Through the Bedford Hills College Program, Marymount Manhattan College offers non-credited College-preparatory courses and credit-bearing courses leading to Associate of Arts degrees in Social Science and Bachelor of Arts degrees in Sociology at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, a New York State maximum-security prison for women.In 1995, laws were passed preventing federal monies from being used for educating the incarcerated, causing many prison programs across the country to close their doors – including the one at Bedford Hills. A task force, chaired by then-superintendent Elaine Lord and comprised of education specialists and the incarcerated at the facility, found that the impact of higher education substantially reduced re-incarceration rates. To re-establish the college program without state and federal funding, the taskforce created a consortium of schools that would donate funds and faculty to continue the college program.Unique Features: In addition to supplying the necessary classroom space, the correctional facility supplies room for a learning center that contains the college’s computer lab and the on-site library, staffed by a dedicated coterie of volunteers from the Bedford Hills area.Bard Prison Initiative (BPI)Bard CollegeDaniel Karpowitz, Director of Policy & [email protected] Kenner, Executive [email protected], 845-758-7308Bard CollegePO Box 5000Annandale-on-HudsonNY 12504-5000Population Served: Women and men who are incarcerated at the Eastern Correctional Facility, Woodbourne Correctional Facility Elmira Correctional Facility, Green Haven Correctional Facility, otBayview Correctional Facility; students must have a GED or high school diploma and program administrators cap admission at 15 spots each year.Program Description: BPI offers college inside three long-term, maximum-security prisons and two transitional medium-security prisons. Founded in 1999 by former Bard student Max Kenner, BPI gives men and women the opportunity to earn a degree from Bard College, a highly regarded private liberal arts university. Providing curriculum in line with a traditional liberal arts program, BPI offers Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees and holds classes identical to those taught at Bard College at Annandale-on- Hudson. The admissions office on Bard’s traditional campus makes decisions about acceptance into the Bachelor’s program based on an incarcerated student’s perceived preparedness and regardless of class size at the correctional facility. Incarcerated students are required to have a Bard Associate’s degree before they can apply to the Bachelor’s degree program. BPI now enrolls nearly 200 women and men fulltime in a rigorous and diverse liberal arts curriculum, offering both associate and bachelor degrees.John Jay College/CUNYPrisoner Reentry InstituteJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice555 W. 57th Street, 6th FloorNew York, NY 10019Phone: 212-484-1399NORTH CAROLINAUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Friday Center for Continuing Education with North Carolina Department for CorrectionsHome - The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing EducationBrick Oettinger, Associate Director for Correctional [email protected] Served: Incarcerated individuals from approximately twenty-five participating North Carolina correctional facilities (on-site classroom courses)with a GED score of at least 250, a WRAT reading grade level of at least 10.0, or prior college academic credits. The sentence criteria exclude all whose parole eligibility and discharge dates are more than 10 years in the future. 18- to 25-year-old individuals funded by Federal Youth Offender Act grants must be within five years of parole eligibility or discharge date.Program Description: The North Carolina Department of Correction works with UNC-Chapel Hill’s Friday Center for Continuing Education to provide a variety of tuition-free university courses and educational services to incarcerated people. Only those incarcerated in the North Carolina prison system qualify for the Correctional Education Program.Programs Offered: Self-paced Correspondence Courses:These courses have a nine-month enrollment period. A renewal of four months is available for a $30 fee (paid by the Correctional Education Program).Unique Features:N/AHeadquarters:NCCorrectional Facilities Served:OHIOInside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Cincinnati)All for One. One For All.Peg HubbardDepartment of Criminal [email protected] ShimrockFacilitator, Inside-Out [email protected] Served: Incarcerated men and Xavier students; The men at Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI) go through the same screening process as Xavier students. They fill out a similar application and are interviewed by the same panel. The intention of the instructors is to choose a mix of students (race, socioeconomic, opinions, criminal history, education, etc.) to ensure class discussion is enriched by varying viewpoints.Program Description: The Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program is a semester-long overview of current social justice topics, taught inside a local prison. Curriculum includes exploration of why people commit crime; what prisons are for; analysis of the Criminal Justice system; punishment and rehabilitation; victims and victimization; restorative justice; myths and realities of prison life.Inside/Outside (ISOS)Jefferson [email protected] Served: Adults from River City Correctional Center with substance abuse issues who would otherwise be sent to Ohio penitentiaries.Program Description: Inside/Outside began in February 2001 with the participation of individual artists and collaborating organizations in an intensive training conducted in Cincinnati by the Pat Graney Dance Company of Seattle. The training involved Cincinnati participants in the creation of an integrated arts program for women at River City.Ohio University College Program for the Incarcerated (CIP)MFEWelcome to Ohio UniversityKen Armstrong, Director of Independent [email protected]@ohio.eduHaning Hall 222Ohio UniversityAthens, OH 45701800-444-2420800-444-2910Population Served: People who are incarceratedProgram Description: Since 1974, the College Program for the Incarcerated (CPI) has provided incarcerated men and women with courses and degree opportunities to further their educational goals. Ohio University seeks to meet the diverse needs of incarcerated distance learners. Through CPI, both associates and bachelor’s degrees are available. Each student is assigned an academic advisor to assist in successfully planning a degree program.Although CPI cannot offer financial aid to incarcerated students, or the option of partial payments, a significant discount through the Comprehensive Fee Plan is offered. Some students may qualify for VA benefits. Ohio University is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The College Program for the Incarcerated is administered by the Office of Independent Study.Zane State CollegeLinda Applegarth (Interim Coordinator of Prison Education)[email protected] Served: People who are incarcerated at the Belmont Correctional InstitutionProgram Description: The College provides instructors who offer credit courses in two short-term certificate programs.OREGONInside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Wilsonville)Julie Kopett, Director of [email protected] Spring, Assistant Director of Community-University [email protected] Served: People who are incarcerated at the Coffee Creek Correctional FacilityProgram Description: The Inside-Out Capstone course provides an opportunity for a small group of students from Portland State University and a group of residents from Coffee Creek Correctional facility to exchange perceptions about crime, justice, and how societal structures and culture define crime and justice. The course is called “Inside-Out Prison ExchangeInside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Salem, Oregon State University)[email protected] Served: People who are incarcerated at the Oregon State PenitentiaryProgram Description: Inside Out is a program that began in 1997 with a select group of Pennsylvania incarcerated individuals and students who had the common goal of studying crime, justice and social issues that affect society at large. Since then it has expanded and through the help of Professor Michelle Inderbitzen the program has made its way to Oregon State University. The goal of Inside Out at OSU is first and foremost to exchange ideas and perceptions and gain a deeper knowledge of crime, the criminal justice system, corrections and imprisonment.Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Salem, University of Oregon)Steven Shankman, Professor of English and [email protected] Served: People who are incarcerated at the Oregon State PenitentiaryProgram Description: Since 2007, University of Oregon (UO) Professor Steven Shankman has taught three Inside-Out Classes through the Clark Honors College (CHC) at the Oregon State Penitentiary. Courses are taught in an integrated classroom with outside students (from the Honors College) and inside students (who are incarcerated at Oregon State Penitentiary). Students study course materials together, and participate in dialogue about the texts and the larger questions of social justice and social inequalities. Since then, more than sixty CHC students have participated in Inside-Out classes at the Oregon State Penitentiary.College InsideNancy Green, Director of Corrections [email protected] Served: Incarcerated individuals from designated institutions (Oregon State Penitentiary, Oregon State Correctional Institution, Mill Creek Correctional Facility) with less than five years left on their sentence, a high school diploma or equivalency, and 18 months of clear conduct. Those meeting the education and clear conduct requirement that have outside funding or can self-pay also enroll in the program.Program Description: The College Inside program is a degree program designed to allow incarcerated students to obtain a two-year college degree that can transfer to a four year university with a focus on general studies, Business or Automotive Technology. College Inside allows students to be in control of their own educational and employment future. The program requires students to think and plan for the future, outside of prison. The program is not just something to do while in prison. It requires effort, responsibility, drive, and commitment.PENNSYLVANIAThe Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (Philadelphia)Temple UniversitySuite 331, MB 66-101810 Liacouras WalkPhiladelphia, PA 19122Phone: 215-204-5163 | Fax: [email protected] Served: Prisons and jails in 25+ states - In each program branch: 9-18 campus-enrolled undergraduates and 9-18 incarcerated (or sentenced) students (in equal numbers)Program Description: Headquartered at Temple University, The Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program® is a national program that offers semester-long, college classes behind bars to groups of students of whom half are incarcerated and half are college students from outside. These seminars are offered in many academic disciplines, but they always emphasize collaboration, critical thinking, and dialogue, with course themes usually focusing on the study of some aspect of our society’s approach to crime and punishment. Every year at least three week-long intensive instructor training institutes prepare faculty from around the country and abroad to build effective correctional-academic partnerships in their home region, to find means to offer credit to inside students wherever possible.This work is fundamentally shaped by the perspectives of people in prison.Community College of Allegheny CountyDistance Learning Center800 Allegheny Avenue; Room 123Pittsburgh, PA 15233412.237.2239fax: 412.237.8187Proctored testing fax: [email protected] learning 412-237-8700For incarcerated individuals: any prison administrator such as a warden or medical administrator, a prison counselor or prison librarianNorthampton Community College3835 Green Pond RoadBethlehem, PA 18020610-861-5300Serving the Lehigh Valley and beyondProgram Description: NCC has helped students of all ages and backgrounds answer one of life's biggest questions.NCC is committed to quality, affordable higher education. We strive for accessibility, with courses scheduled at multiple campuses and locations during the day and evening, on weekends and online. You can choose from nearly 100 transfer and career programs leading to associate's degrees, certificates and diplomas.RHODE ISLANDRhode Island Department of Corrections Education UnitYour Page TitleRalph [email protected] Served: Incarcerated individuals at any Adult Correctional InstitutionProgram Description: Participants have the opportunity to earn college credits for various liberal arts and/or business offerings in classes offered by the community college. Course offerings vary by semester. Academic requirements of the AA degrees are followed to enable students to attain the AA degree while incarcerated or allow them to continue to pursue the AA degree upon release. Vocational post-secondary offerings vary by semester and lead to the obtainment of trade related certificates of completion and/or licenses as applicable.

Bill Gates is exactly correct as usual. Bill Gates is the richest person in the world principally because he leveraged technology to create immense wealth by replacing humans with computers.I would add that this process has been occurring for decades and continues to speed up.Thinking machines will replace most human workers sooner than most people imagine.This video is an overview, please at least watch it for a few minutes.What follows is more supporting evidence including an article from the Economist.Jeff Ronne's answer to Is technology eliminating jobs at a faster rate than they are being created?Robots / computer assisted humans produce goods and services cheaper / more efficiently than humans alone. In a capitalist system robots will win as the companies using technology will dominate in the marketplace as only the most profitable companies survive and grow. The world's capital is flowing towards automation and away from investing in human labor simply because automation has a better ROI. This is the tipping point economically speaking. The point of no return.Perfect is the enemy of goodIn an engineering / technology business sense means you do not have to replace the worker with technology. You simply have to make the worker more productive with technology, using less workers in total while increasing economic production. The robot / computer / software works cooperatively with the worker. So in the end where there used to be 1M jobs, it reduces to 800k then to 500k then to 250k etc ... over time as technology advances. All the while the production of goods and services is rising with lower costs. When economic growth requires less people and jobs year after year you have an insurmountable problem.This is happening at the present time. This is why we have a "jobless" recovery. No one wants to acknowledge the reason why. The trend of technology replacing virtually every worker destroys the model of capitalism. Capitalism assumes that economic production chiefly employees people not machines. Workers derive personal wealth from employment. When the majority of goods and services are produced by machines without human labor then the capitalist model falls completely apart.Technology is a chief driver of growing wealth inequality in the USA and the world. This has created a rich class of owners (the 5% that make and own the technology along with the minority that they employ) and an increasingly poorer class of workers scrambling for an ever decreasing number of low paying service jobs.In Silicon Valley there is an elite relatively small economic class of ordinary citizens with a large amount of wealth derived solely from automation (also known as productivity technology / disruptive change which is tech speak for doing more output with less workers).As for the argument that productivity technology only impacts low paying jobs is false. Automation is first geared precisely towards high paying, high value jobs. That is where the money and profits reside for automation. Bill Gates is still the richest person in the world in part because he automated high paid office work with Microsoft office and email. Yes CPAs, business and finance people use excel as their primary language. What would take a CPA in the 1960's a month to do can be done in an hour today. Most financial software automates jobs that accountants performed.In fact venture capital and invested corporate capital deliberately targets those jobs / industries with the highest costs. It will likely take a 100 years to maybe 200 years to completely replace most jobs with technology. It may never fully complete perhaps leaving 1% or 10% of the population having to perform needed tasks (not work per se, not employment per se because these concepts may cease to exist in the post capitalist economic model).Despite the claims to the contrary it is different this time. We are not talking about horses, trains, assembly lines, etc ... We are talking about intelligent robots with advanced technology that learn quickly without limit in the end. Robots are general purpose and will do any job better and faster as time marches on. Most human work can be automated with certainty given enough time. As new jobs are created they will be automated in short order as the training process only happens once for all robots. Unlike humans which have to be individually trained in costly manner, training one robot is effectively training all robots for all of time. Humans are inefficient in comparison, they die taking most if not all of their knowledge with them.The future role for money, taxes and traditional jobs may likely not exist as we know it today. These concepts are predicated on an economic system that will no longer likely exist.The transition to a jobless economy where only a small number of robot designers are gainfully employed could be extremely problematic. Rising wealth inequality might be inevitable unless we abandon our 19th century economic concepts and move into the 22nd century economy.This article from the Economist last year provides a worthwhile overview to the matter. This is becoming a mainstream of new economic thought.Everyone owes it to themselves and their families to personally know what the future may likely hold. The technology and automation trend spans the globe, no one can escape it in the end especially future generations.The onrushing wave"Previous technological innovation has always delivered more long-run employment, not less. But things can change."IN 1930, when the world was “suffering…from a bad attack of economic pessimism”, John Maynard Keynes wrote a broadly optimistic essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”. It imagined a middle way between revolution and stagnation that would leave the said grandchildren a great deal richer than their grandparents. But the path was not without dangers.One of the worries Keynes admitted was a “new disease”: “technological unemployment…due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour.” His readers might not have heard of the problem, he suggested—but they were certain to hear a lot more about it in the years to come.For the most part, they did not. Nowadays, the majority of economists confidently wave such worries away. By raising productivity, they argue, any automation which economises on the use of labour will increase incomes. That will generate demand for new products and services, which will in turn create new jobs for displaced workers. To think otherwise has meant being tarred a Luddite—the name taken by 19th-century textile workers who smashed the machines taking their jobs.For much of the 20th century, those arguing that technology brought ever more jobs and prosperity looked to have the better of the debate. Real incomes in Britain scarcely doubled between the beginning of the common era and 1570. They then tripled from 1570 to 1875. And they more than tripled from 1875 to 1975. Industrialisation did not end up eliminating the need for human workers. On the contrary, it created employment opportunities sufficient to soak up the 20th century’s exploding population. Keynes’s vision of everyone in the 2030s being a lot richer is largely achieved. His belief they would work just 15 hours or so a week has not come to pass.When the sleeper wakesYet some now fear that a new era of automation enabled by ever more powerful and capable computers could work out differently. They start from the observation that, across the rich world, all is far from well in the world of work. The essence of what they see as a work crisis is that in rich countries the wages of the typical worker, adjusted for cost of living, are stagnant. In America the real wage has hardly budged over the past four decades. Even in places like Britain and Germany, where employment is touching new highs, wages have been flat for a decade. Recent research suggests that this is because substituting capital for labour through automation is increasingly attractive; as a result owners of capital have captured ever more of the world’s income since the 1980s, while the share going to labour has fallen.At the same time, even in relatively egalitarian places like Sweden, inequality among the employed has risen sharply, with the share going to the highest earners soaring. For those not in the elite, argues David Graeber, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, much of modern labour consists of stultifying “bullshit jobs”—low- and mid-level screen-sitting that serves simply to occupy workers for whom the economy no longer has much use. Keeping them employed, Mr Graeber argues, is not an economic choice; it is something the ruling class does to keep control over the lives of others.Be that as it may, drudgery may soon enough give way to frank unemployment. There is already a long-term trend towards lower levels of employment in some rich countries. The proportion of American adults participating in the labour force recently hit its lowest level since 1978, and although some of that is due to the effects of ageing, some is not. In a recent speech that was modelled in part on Keynes’s “Possibilities”, Larry Summers, a former American treasury secretary, looked at employment trends among American men between 25 and 54. In the 1960s only one in 20 of those men was not working. According to Mr Summers’s extrapolations, in ten years the number could be one in seven.This is one indication, Mr Summers says, that technical change is increasingly taking the form of “capital that effectively substitutes for labour”. There may be a lot more for such capital to do in the near future. A 2013 paper by Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne, of the University of Oxford, argued that jobs are at high risk of being automated in 47% of the occupational categories into which work is customarily sorted. That includes accountancy, legal work, technical writing and a lot of other white-collar occupations.Answering the question of whether such automation could lead to prolonged pain for workers means taking a close look at past experience, theory and technological trends. The picture suggested by this evidence is a complex one. It is also more worrying than many economists and politicians have been prepared to admit.The lathe of heavenEconomists take the relationship between innovation and higher living standards for granted in part because they believe history justifies such a view. Industrialisation clearly led to enormous rises in incomes and living standards over the long run. Yet the road to riches was rockier than is often appreciated.In 1500 an estimated 75% of the British labour force toiled in agriculture. By 1800 that figure had fallen to 35%. When the shift to manufacturing got under way during the 18th century it was overwhelmingly done at small scale, either within the home or in a small workshop; employment in a large factory was a rarity. By the end of the 19th century huge plants in massive industrial cities were the norm. The great shift was made possible by automation and steam engines.Industrial firms combined human labour with big, expensive capital equipment. To maximise the output of that costly machinery, factory owners reorganised the processes of production. Workers were given one or a few repetitive tasks, often making components of finished products rather than whole pieces. Bosses imposed a tight schedule and strict worker discipline to keep up the productive pace. The Industrial Revolution was not simply a matter of replacing muscle with steam; it was a matter of reshaping jobs themselves into the sort of precisely defined components that steam-driven machinery needed—cogs in a factory system.The way old jobs were done changed; new jobs were created. Joel Mokyr, an economic historian at Northwestern University in Illinois, argues that the more intricate machines, techniques and supply chains of the period all required careful tending. The workers who provided that care were well rewarded. As research by Lawrence Katz, of Harvard University, and Robert Margo, of Boston University, shows, employment in manufacturing “hollowed out”. As employment grew for highly skilled workers and unskilled workers, craft workers lost out. This was the loss to which the Luddites, understandably if not effectively, took exception.With the low-skilled workers far more numerous, at least to begin with, the lot of the average worker during the early part of this great industrial and social upheaval was not a happy one. As Mr Mokyr notes, “life did not improve all that much between 1750 and 1850.” For 60 years, from 1770 to 1830, growth in British wages, adjusted for inflation, was imperceptible because productivity growth was restricted to a few industries. Not until the late 19th century, when the gains had spread across the whole economy, did wages at last perform in line with productivity (see chart 1).Along with social reforms and new political movements that gave voice to the workers, this faster wage growth helped spread the benefits of industrialisation across wider segments of the population. New investments in education provided a supply of workers for the more skilled jobs that were by then being created in ever greater numbers. This shift continued into the 20th century as post-secondary education became increasingly common.Claudia Goldin, an economist at Harvard University, and Mr Katz have written that workers were in a “race between education and technology” during this period, and for the most part they won. Even so, it was not until the “golden age” after the second world war that workers in the rich world secured real prosperity, and a large, property-owning middle class came to dominate politics. At the same time communism, a legacy of industrialisation’s harsh early era, kept hundreds of millions of people around the world in poverty, and the effects of the imperialism driven by European industrialisation continued to be felt by billions.The impacts of technological change take their time appearing. They also vary hugely from industry to industry. Although in many simple economic models technology pairs neatly with capital and labour to produce output, in practice technological changes do not affect all workers the same way. Some find that their skills are complementary to new technologies. Others find themselves out of work.Take computers. In the early 20th century a “computer” was a worker, or a room of workers, doing mathematical calculations by hand, often with the end point of one person’s work the starting point for the next. The development of mechanical and electronic computing rendered these arrangements obsolete. But in time it greatly increased the productivity of those who used the new computers in their work.Many other technical innovations had similar effects. New machinery displaced handicraft producers across numerous industries, from textiles to metalworking. At the same time it enabled vastly more output per person than craft producers could ever manage.Player pianoFor a task to be replaced by a machine, it helps a great deal if, like the work of human computers, it is already highly routine. Hence the demise of production-line jobs and some sorts of book-keeping, lost to the robot and the spreadsheet. Meanwhile work less easily broken down into a series of stereotyped tasks—whether rewarding, as the management of other workers and the teaching of toddlers can be, or more of a grind, like tidying and cleaning messy work places—has grown as a share of total employment.But the “race” aspect of technological change means that such workers cannot rest on their pay packets. Firms are constantly experimenting with new technologies and production processes. Experimentation with different techniques and business models requires flexibility, which is one critical advantage of a human worker. Yet over time, as best practices are worked out and then codified, it becomes easier to break production down into routine components, then automate those components as technology allows.If, that is, automation makes sense. As David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), points out in a 2013 paper, the mere fact that a job can be automated does not mean that it will be; relative costs also matter. When Nissan produces cars in Japan, he notes, it relies heavily on robots. At plants in India, by contrast, the firm relies more heavily on cheap local labour.Even when machine capabilities are rapidly improving, it can make sense instead to seek out ever cheaper supplies of increasingly skilled labour. Thus since the 1980s (a time when, in America, the trend towards post-secondary education levelled off) workers there and elsewhere have found themselves facing increased competition from both machines and cheap emerging-market workers.Such processes have steadily and relentlessly squeezed labour out of the manufacturing sector in most rich economies. The share of American employment in manufacturing has declined sharply since the 1950s, from almost 30% to less than 10%. At the same time, jobs in services soared, from less than 50% of employment to almost 70% (see chart 2). It was inevitable, therefore, that firms would start to apply the same experimentation and reorganisation to service industries.A new wave of technological progress may dramatically accelerate this automation of brain-work. Evidence is mounting that rapid technological progress, which accounted for the long era of rapid productivity growth from the 19th century to the 1970s, is back. The sort of advances that allow people to put in their pocket a computer that is not only more powerful than any in the world 20 years ago, but also has far better software and far greater access to useful data, as well as to other people and machines, have implications for all sorts of work.The case for a highly disruptive period of economic growth is made by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, professors at MIT, in “The Second Machine Age”, a book to be published later this month. Like the first great era of industrialisation, they argue, it should deliver enormous benefits—but not without a period of disorienting and uncomfortable change. Their argument rests on an underappreciated aspect of the exponential growth in chip processing speed, memory capacity and other computer metrics: that the amount of progress computers will make in the next few years is always equal to the progress they have made since the very beginning. Mr Brynjolfsson and Mr McAfee reckon that the main bottleneck on innovation is the time it takes society to sort through the many combinations and permutations of new technologies and business models.A startling progression of inventions seems to bear their thesis out. Ten years ago technologically minded economists pointed to driving cars in traffic as the sort of human accomplishment that computers were highly unlikely to master. Now Google cars are rolling round California driver-free no one doubts such mastery is possible, though the speed at which fully self-driving cars will come to market remains hard to guess.Brave new worldEven after computers beat grandmasters at chess (once thought highly unlikely), nobody thought they could take on people at free-form games played in natural language. Then Watson, a pattern-recognising supercomputer developed by IBM, bested the best human competitors in America’s popular and syntactically tricksy general-knowledge quiz show “Jeopardy!” Versions of Watson are being marketed to firms across a range of industries to help with all sorts of pattern-recognition problems. Its acumen will grow, and its costs fall, as firms learn to harness its abilities.The machines are not just cleverer, they also have access to far more data. The combination of big data and smart machines will take over some occupations wholesale; in others it will allow firms to do more with fewer workers. Text-mining programs will displace professional jobs in legal services. Biopsies will be analysed more efficiently by image-processing software than lab technicians. Accountants may follow travel agents and tellers into the unemployment line as tax software improves. Machines are already turning basic sports results and financial data into good-enough news stories.Jobs that are not easily automated may still be transformed. New data-processing technology could break “cognitive” jobs down into smaller and smaller tasks. As well as opening the way to eventual automation this could reduce the satisfaction from such work, just as the satisfaction of making things was reduced by deskilling and interchangeable parts in the 19th century. If such jobs persist, they may engage Mr Graeber’s “bullshit” detector.Being newly able to do brain work will not stop computers from doing ever more formerly manual labour; it will make them better at it. The designers of the latest generation of industrial robots talk about their creations as helping workers rather than replacing them; but there is little doubt that the technology will be able to do a bit of both—probably more than a bit. A taxi driver will be a rarity in many places by the 2030s or 2040s. That sounds like bad news for journalists who rely on that most reliable source of local knowledge and prejudice—but will there be many journalists left to care? Will there be airline pilots? Or traffic cops? Or soldiers?There will still be jobs. Even Mr Frey and Mr Osborne, whose research speaks of 47% of job categories being open to automation within two decades, accept that some jobs—especially those currently associated with high levels of education and high wages—will survive (see table). Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University and a much-read blogger, writes in his most recent book, “Average is Over”, that rich economies seem to be bifurcating into a small group of workers with skills highly complementary with machine intelligence, for whom he has high hopes, and the rest, for whom not so much.And although Mr Brynjolfsson and Mr McAfee rightly point out that developing the business models which make the best use of new technologies will involve trial and error and human flexibility, it is also the case that the second machine age will make such trial and error easier. It will be shockingly easy to launch a startup, bring a new product to market and sell to billions of global consumers (see article). Those who create or invest in blockbuster ideas may earn unprecedented returns as a result.In a forthcoming book Thomas Piketty, an economist at the Paris School of Economics, argues along similar lines that America may be pioneering a hyper-unequal economic model in which a top 1% of capital-owners and “supermanagers” grab a growing share of national income and accumulate an increasing concentration of national wealth. The rise of the middle-class—a 20th-century innovation—was a hugely important political and social development across the world. The squeezing out of that class could generate a more antagonistic, unstable and potentially dangerous politics.The potential for dramatic change is clear. A future of widespread technological unemployment is harder for many to accept. Every great period of innovation has produced its share of labour-market doomsayers, but technological progress has never previously failed to generate new employment opportunities.The productivity gains from future automation will be real, even if they mostly accrue to the owners of the machines. Some will be spent on goods and services—golf instructors, household help and so on—and most of the rest invested in firms that are seeking to expand and presumably hire more labour. Though inequality could soar in such a world, unemployment would not necessarily spike. The current doldrum in wages may, like that of the early industrial era, be a temporary matter, with the good times about to roll (see chart 3).These jobs may look distinctly different from those they replace. Just as past mechanisation freed, or forced, workers into jobs requiring more cognitive dexterity, leaps in machine intelligence could create space for people to specialise in more emotive occupations, as yet unsuited to machines: a world of artists and therapists, love counsellors and yoga instructors.Such emotional and relational work could be as critical to the future as metal-bashing was in the past, even if it gets little respect at first. Cultural norms change slowly. Manufacturing jobs are still often treated as “better”—in some vague, non-pecuniary way—than paper-pushing is. To some 18th-century observers, working in the fields was inherently more noble than making gewgaws.But though growth in areas of the economy that are not easily automated provides jobs, it does not necessarily help real wages. Mr Summers points out that prices of things-made-of-widgets have fallen remarkably in past decades; America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics reckons that today you could get the equivalent of an early 1980s television for a twentieth of its then price, were it not that no televisions that poor are still made. However, prices of things not made of widgets, most notably college education and health care, have shot up. If people lived on widgets alone— goods whose costs have fallen because of both globalisation and technology—there would have been no pause in the increase of real wages. It is the increase in the prices of stuff that isn’t mechanised (whose supply is often under the control of the state and perhaps subject to fundamental scarcity) that means a pay packet goes no further than it used to.So technological progress squeezes some incomes in the short term before making everyone richer in the long term, and can drive up the costs of some things even more than it eventually increases earnings. As innovation continues, automation may bring down costs in some of those stubborn areas as well, though those dominated by scarcity—such as houses in desirable places—are likely to resist the trend, as may those where the state keeps market forces at bay. But if innovation does make health care or higher education cheaper, it will probably be at the cost of more jobs, and give rise to yet more concentration of income.The machine stopsEven if the long-term outlook is rosy, with the potential for greater wealth and lots of new jobs, it does not mean that policymakers should simply sit on their hands in the mean time. Adaptation to past waves of progress rested on political and policy responses. The most obvious are the massive improvements in educational attainment brought on first by the institution of universal secondary education and then by the rise of university attendance. Policies aimed at similar gains would now seem to be in order. But as Mr Cowen has pointed out, the gains of the 19th and 20th centuries will be hard to duplicate.Boosting the skills and earning power of the children of 19th-century farmers and labourers took little more than offering schools where they could learn to read, write and do algebra. Pushing a large proportion of college graduates to complete graduate work successfully will be harder and more expensive. Perhaps cheap and innovative online education will indeed make new attainment possible. But as Mr Cowen notes, such programmes may tend to deliver big gains only for the most conscientious students.Another way in which previous adaptation is not necessarily a good guide to future employment is the existence of welfare. The alternative to joining the 19th-century industrial proletariat was malnourished deprivation. Today, because of measures introduced in response to, and to some extent on the proceeds of, industrialisation, people in the developed world are provided with unemployment benefits, disability allowances and other forms of welfare. They are also much more likely than a bygone peasant to have savings. This means that the “reservation wage”—the wage below which a worker will not accept a job—is now high in historical terms. If governments refuse to allow jobless workers to fall too far below the average standard of living, then this reservation wage will rise steadily, and ever more workers may find work unattractive. And the higher it rises, the greater the incentive to invest in capital that replaces labour.Everyone should be able to benefit from productivity gains—in that, Keynes was united with his successors. His worry about technological unemployment was mainly a worry about a “temporary phase of maladjustment” as society and the economy adjusted to ever greater levels of productivity. So it could well prove. However, society may find itself sorely tested if, as seems possible, growth and innovation deliver handsome gains to the skilled, while the rest cling to dwindling employment opportunities at stagnant wages.

YesJobs are disappearing faster than they are being created. This trend will only increase as technological advances accelerate and compound.This trend will create rising wealth inequality and social instability which we are already observing today. Too many people, not enough well paying jobs. Robots / computer assisted humans produce goods and services cheaper / more efficiently than humans alone. In a capitalist system robots will win as the companies using technology will dominate in the marketplace as only the most profitable companies survive and grow. The world's capital is flowing towards automation and away from investing in human labor simply because automation has a better ROI. This is the tipping point economically speaking. The point of no return.Perfect is the enemy of goodIn an engineering / technology business sense means you do not have to replace the worker with technology. You simply have to make the worker more productive with technology, using less workers in total while increasing economic production. The robot / computer / software works cooperatively with the worker. So in the end where there used to be 1M jobs, it reduces to 800k then to 500k then to 250k etc ... over time as technology advances. All the while the production of goods and services is rising with lower costs. When economic growth requires less people and jobs year after year you have an insurmountable problem.This is happening at the present time. This is why we have a "jobless" recovery. No one wants to acknowledge the reason why. The trend of technology replacing virtually every worker destroys the model of capitalism. Capitalism assumes that economic production chiefly employees people not machines. Workers derive personal wealth from employment. When the majority of goods and services are produced by machines without human labor then the capitalist model falls completely apart.Technology is a chief driver of growing wealth inequality in the USA and the world. This has created a rich class of owners (the 5% that make and own the technology along with the minority that they employ) and an increasingly poorer class of workers scrambling for an ever decreasing number of low paying service jobs.In Silicon Valley there is an elite relatively small economic class of ordinary citizens with a large amount of wealth derived solely from automation (also known as productivity technology / disruptive change which is tech speak for doing more output with less workers).As for the argument that productivity technology only impacts low paying jobs is false. Automation is first geared precisely towards high paying, high value jobs. That is where the money and profits reside for automation. Bill Gates is still the richest person in the world in part because he automated high paid office work with Microsoft office and email. Yes CPAs, business and finance people use excel as their primary language. What would take a CPA in the 1960's a month to do can be done in an hour today. Most financial software automates jobs that accountants performed.In fact venture capital and invested corporate capital deliberately targets those jobs / industries with the highest costs. It will likely take a 100 years to maybe 200 years to completely replace most jobs with technology. It may never fully complete perhaps leaving 1% or 10% of the population having to perform needed tasks (not work per se, not employment per se because these concepts may cease to exist in the post capitalist economic model).Despite the claims to the contrary it is different this time. We are not talking about horses, trains, assembly lines, etc ... We are talking about intelligent robots with advanced technology that learn quickly without limit in the end. Robots are general purpose and will do any job better and faster as time marches on. Most human work can be automated with certainty given enough time. As new jobs are created they will be automated in short order as the training process only happens once for all robots. Unlike humans which have to be individually trained in costly manner, training one robot is effectively training all robots for all of time. Humans are inefficient in comparison, they die taking most if not all of their knowledge with them.The future role for money, taxes and traditional jobs may likely not exist as we know it today. These concepts are predicated on an economic system that will no longer likely exist.The transition to a jobless economy where only a small number of robot designers are gainfully employed could be extremely problematic. Rising wealth inequality might be inevitable unless we abandon our 19th century economic concepts and move into the 22nd century economy.This article from the Economist last year provides a worthwhile overview to the matter. This is becoming a mainstream of new economic thought. Everyone owes it to themselves and their families to personally know what the future may likely hold. The technology and automation trend spans the globe, no one can escape it in the end especially future generations.The onrushing wave"Previous technological innovation has always delivered more long-run employment, not less. But things can change."IN 1930, when the world was “suffering…from a bad attack of economic pessimism”, John Maynard Keynes wrote a broadly optimistic essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”. It imagined a middle way between revolution and stagnation that would leave the said grandchildren a great deal richer than their grandparents. But the path was not without dangers.One of the worries Keynes admitted was a “new disease”: “technological unemployment…due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour.” His readers might not have heard of the problem, he suggested—but they were certain to hear a lot more about it in the years to come.For the most part, they did not. Nowadays, the majority of economists confidently wave such worries away. By raising productivity, they argue, any automation which economises on the use of labour will increase incomes. That will generate demand for new products and services, which will in turn create new jobs for displaced workers. To think otherwise has meant being tarred a Luddite—the name taken by 19th-century textile workers who smashed the machines taking their jobs.For much of the 20th century, those arguing that technology brought ever more jobs and prosperity looked to have the better of the debate. Real incomes in Britain scarcely doubled between the beginning of the common era and 1570. They then tripled from 1570 to 1875. And they more than tripled from 1875 to 1975. Industrialisation did not end up eliminating the need for human workers. On the contrary, it created employment opportunities sufficient to soak up the 20th century’s exploding population. Keynes’s vision of everyone in the 2030s being a lot richer is largely achieved. His belief they would work just 15 hours or so a week has not come to pass.When the sleeper wakesYet some now fear that a new era of automation enabled by ever more powerful and capable computers could work out differently. They start from the observation that, across the rich world, all is far from well in the world of work. The essence of what they see as a work crisis is that in rich countries the wages of the typical worker, adjusted for cost of living, are stagnant. In America the real wage has hardly budged over the past four decades. Even in places like Britain and Germany, where employment is touching new highs, wages have been flat for a decade. Recent research suggests that this is because substituting capital for labour through automation is increasingly attractive; as a result owners of capital have captured ever more of the world’s income since the 1980s, while the share going to labour has fallen.At the same time, even in relatively egalitarian places like Sweden, inequality among the employed has risen sharply, with the share going to the highest earners soaring. For those not in the elite, argues David Graeber, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, much of modern labour consists of stultifying “bullshit jobs”—low- and mid-level screen-sitting that serves simply to occupy workers for whom the economy no longer has much use. Keeping them employed, Mr Graeber argues, is not an economic choice; it is something the ruling class does to keep control over the lives of others.Be that as it may, drudgery may soon enough give way to frank unemployment. There is already a long-term trend towards lower levels of employment in some rich countries. The proportion of American adults participating in the labour force recently hit its lowest level since 1978, and although some of that is due to the effects of ageing, some is not. In a recent speech that was modelled in part on Keynes’s “Possibilities”, Larry Summers, a former American treasury secretary, looked at employment trends among American men between 25 and 54. In the 1960s only one in 20 of those men was not working. According to Mr Summers’s extrapolations, in ten years the number could be one in seven.This is one indication, Mr Summers says, that technical change is increasingly taking the form of “capital that effectively substitutes for labour”. There may be a lot more for such capital to do in the near future. A 2013 paper by Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne, of the University of Oxford, argued that jobs are at high risk of being automated in 47% of the occupational categories into which work is customarily sorted. That includes accountancy, legal work, technical writing and a lot of other white-collar occupations.Answering the question of whether such automation could lead to prolonged pain for workers means taking a close look at past experience, theory and technological trends. The picture suggested by this evidence is a complex one. It is also more worrying than many economists and politicians have been prepared to admit.The lathe of heavenEconomists take the relationship between innovation and higher living standards for granted in part because they believe history justifies such a view. Industrialisation clearly led to enormous rises in incomes and living standards over the long run. Yet the road to riches was rockier than is often appreciated.In 1500 an estimated 75% of the British labour force toiled in agriculture. By 1800 that figure had fallen to 35%. When the shift to manufacturing got under way during the 18th century it was overwhelmingly done at small scale, either within the home or in a small workshop; employment in a large factory was a rarity. By the end of the 19th century huge plants in massive industrial cities were the norm. The great shift was made possible by automation and steam engines.Industrial firms combined human labour with big, expensive capital equipment. To maximise the output of that costly machinery, factory owners reorganised the processes of production. Workers were given one or a few repetitive tasks, often making components of finished products rather than whole pieces. Bosses imposed a tight schedule and strict worker discipline to keep up the productive pace. The Industrial Revolution was not simply a matter of replacing muscle with steam; it was a matter of reshaping jobs themselves into the sort of precisely defined components that steam-driven machinery needed—cogs in a factory system.The way old jobs were done changed; new jobs were created. Joel Mokyr, an economic historian at Northwestern University in Illinois, argues that the more intricate machines, techniques and supply chains of the period all required careful tending. The workers who provided that care were well rewarded. As research by Lawrence Katz, of Harvard University, and Robert Margo, of Boston University, shows, employment in manufacturing “hollowed out”. As employment grew for highly skilled workers and unskilled workers, craft workers lost out. This was the loss to which the Luddites, understandably if not effectively, took exception.With the low-skilled workers far more numerous, at least to begin with, the lot of the average worker during the early part of this great industrial and social upheaval was not a happy one. As Mr Mokyr notes, “life did not improve all that much between 1750 and 1850.” For 60 years, from 1770 to 1830, growth in British wages, adjusted for inflation, was imperceptible because productivity growth was restricted to a few industries. Not until the late 19th century, when the gains had spread across the whole economy, did wages at last perform in line with productivity (see chart 1).Along with social reforms and new political movements that gave voice to the workers, this faster wage growth helped spread the benefits of industrialisation across wider segments of the population. New investments in education provided a supply of workers for the more skilled jobs that were by then being created in ever greater numbers. This shift continued into the 20th century as post-secondary education became increasingly common.Claudia Goldin, an economist at Harvard University, and Mr Katz have written that workers were in a “race between education and technology” during this period, and for the most part they won. Even so, it was not until the “golden age” after the second world war that workers in the rich world secured real prosperity, and a large, property-owning middle class came to dominate politics. At the same time communism, a legacy of industrialisation’s harsh early era, kept hundreds of millions of people around the world in poverty, and the effects of the imperialism driven by European industrialisation continued to be felt by billions.The impacts of technological change take their time appearing. They also vary hugely from industry to industry. Although in many simple economic models technology pairs neatly with capital and labour to produce output, in practice technological changes do not affect all workers the same way. Some find that their skills are complementary to new technologies. Others find themselves out of work.Take computers. In the early 20th century a “computer” was a worker, or a room of workers, doing mathematical calculations by hand, often with the end point of one person’s work the starting point for the next. The development of mechanical and electronic computing rendered these arrangements obsolete. But in time it greatly increased the productivity of those who used the new computers in their work.Many other technical innovations had similar effects. New machinery displaced handicraft producers across numerous industries, from textiles to metalworking. At the same time it enabled vastly more output per person than craft producers could ever manage.Player pianoFor a task to be replaced by a machine, it helps a great deal if, like the work of human computers, it is already highly routine. Hence the demise of production-line jobs and some sorts of book-keeping, lost to the robot and the spreadsheet. Meanwhile work less easily broken down into a series of stereotyped tasks—whether rewarding, as the management of other workers and the teaching of toddlers can be, or more of a grind, like tidying and cleaning messy work places—has grown as a share of total employment.But the “race” aspect of technological change means that such workers cannot rest on their pay packets. Firms are constantly experimenting with new technologies and production processes. Experimentation with different techniques and business models requires flexibility, which is one critical advantage of a human worker. Yet over time, as best practices are worked out and then codified, it becomes easier to break production down into routine components, then automate those components as technology allows.If, that is, automation makes sense. As David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), points out in a 2013 paper, the mere fact that a job can be automated does not mean that it will be; relative costs also matter. When Nissan produces cars in Japan, he notes, it relies heavily on robots. At plants in India, by contrast, the firm relies more heavily on cheap local labour.Even when machine capabilities are rapidly improving, it can make sense instead to seek out ever cheaper supplies of increasingly skilled labour. Thus since the 1980s (a time when, in America, the trend towards post-secondary education levelled off) workers there and elsewhere have found themselves facing increased competition from both machines and cheap emerging-market workers.Such processes have steadily and relentlessly squeezed labour out of the manufacturing sector in most rich economies. The share of American employment in manufacturing has declined sharply since the 1950s, from almost 30% to less than 10%. At the same time, jobs in services soared, from less than 50% of employment to almost 70% (see chart 2). It was inevitable, therefore, that firms would start to apply the same experimentation and reorganisation to service industries.A new wave of technological progress may dramatically accelerate this automation of brain-work. Evidence is mounting that rapid technological progress, which accounted for the long era of rapid productivity growth from the 19th century to the 1970s, is back. The sort of advances that allow people to put in their pocket a computer that is not only more powerful than any in the world 20 years ago, but also has far better software and far greater access to useful data, as well as to other people and machines, have implications for all sorts of work.The case for a highly disruptive period of economic growth is made by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, professors at MIT, in “The Second Machine Age”, a book to be published later this month. Like the first great era of industrialisation, they argue, it should deliver enormous benefits—but not without a period of disorienting and uncomfortable change. Their argument rests on an underappreciated aspect of the exponential growth in chip processing speed, memory capacity and other computer metrics: that the amount of progress computers will make in the next few years is always equal to the progress they have made since the very beginning. Mr Brynjolfsson and Mr McAfee reckon that the main bottleneck on innovation is the time it takes society to sort through the many combinations and permutations of new technologies and business models.A startling progression of inventions seems to bear their thesis out. Ten years ago technologically minded economists pointed to driving cars in traffic as the sort of human accomplishment that computers were highly unlikely to master. Now Google cars are rolling round California driver-free no one doubts such mastery is possible, though the speed at which fully self-driving cars will come to market remains hard to guess.Brave new worldEven after computers beat grandmasters at chess (once thought highly unlikely), nobody thought they could take on people at free-form games played in natural language. Then Watson, a pattern-recognising supercomputer developed by IBM, bested the best human competitors in America’s popular and syntactically tricksy general-knowledge quiz show “Jeopardy!” Versions of Watson are being marketed to firms across a range of industries to help with all sorts of pattern-recognition problems. Its acumen will grow, and its costs fall, as firms learn to harness its abilities.The machines are not just cleverer, they also have access to far more data. The combination of big data and smart machines will take over some occupations wholesale; in others it will allow firms to do more with fewer workers. Text-mining programs will displace professional jobs in legal services. Biopsies will be analysed more efficiently by image-processing software than lab technicians. Accountants may follow travel agents and tellers into the unemployment line as tax software improves. Machines are already turning basic sports results and financial data into good-enough news stories.Jobs that are not easily automated may still be transformed. New data-processing technology could break “cognitive” jobs down into smaller and smaller tasks. As well as opening the way to eventual automation this could reduce the satisfaction from such work, just as the satisfaction of making things was reduced by deskilling and interchangeable parts in the 19th century. If such jobs persist, they may engage Mr Graeber’s “bullshit” detector.Being newly able to do brain work will not stop computers from doing ever more formerly manual labour; it will make them better at it. The designers of the latest generation of industrial robots talk about their creations as helping workers rather than replacing them; but there is little doubt that the technology will be able to do a bit of both—probably more than a bit. A taxi driver will be a rarity in many places by the 2030s or 2040s. That sounds like bad news for journalists who rely on that most reliable source of local knowledge and prejudice—but will there be many journalists left to care? Will there be airline pilots? Or traffic cops? Or soldiers?There will still be jobs. Even Mr Frey and Mr Osborne, whose research speaks of 47% of job categories being open to automation within two decades, accept that some jobs—especially those currently associated with high levels of education and high wages—will survive (see table). Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University and a much-read blogger, writes in his most recent book, “Average is Over”, that rich economies seem to be bifurcating into a small group of workers with skills highly complementary with machine intelligence, for whom he has high hopes, and the rest, for whom not so much.And although Mr Brynjolfsson and Mr McAfee rightly point out that developing the business models which make the best use of new technologies will involve trial and error and human flexibility, it is also the case that the second machine age will make such trial and error easier. It will be shockingly easy to launch a startup, bring a new product to market and sell to billions of global consumers (see article). Those who create or invest in blockbuster ideas may earn unprecedented returns as a result.In a forthcoming book Thomas Piketty, an economist at the Paris School of Economics, argues along similar lines that America may be pioneering a hyper-unequal economic model in which a top 1% of capital-owners and “supermanagers” grab a growing share of national income and accumulate an increasing concentration of national wealth. The rise of the middle-class—a 20th-century innovation—was a hugely important political and social development across the world. The squeezing out of that class could generate a more antagonistic, unstable and potentially dangerous politics.The potential for dramatic change is clear. A future of widespread technological unemployment is harder for many to accept. Every great period of innovation has produced its share of labour-market doomsayers, but technological progress has never previously failed to generate new employment opportunities.The productivity gains from future automation will be real, even if they mostly accrue to the owners of the machines. Some will be spent on goods and services—golf instructors, household help and so on—and most of the rest invested in firms that are seeking to expand and presumably hire more labour. Though inequality could soar in such a world, unemployment would not necessarily spike. The current doldrum in wages may, like that of the early industrial era, be a temporary matter, with the good times about to roll (see chart 3).These jobs may look distinctly different from those they replace. Just as past mechanisation freed, or forced, workers into jobs requiring more cognitive dexterity, leaps in machine intelligence could create space for people to specialise in more emotive occupations, as yet unsuited to machines: a world of artists and therapists, love counsellors and yoga instructors.Such emotional and relational work could be as critical to the future as metal-bashing was in the past, even if it gets little respect at first. Cultural norms change slowly. Manufacturing jobs are still often treated as “better”—in some vague, non-pecuniary way—than paper-pushing is. To some 18th-century observers, working in the fields was inherently more noble than making gewgaws.But though growth in areas of the economy that are not easily automated provides jobs, it does not necessarily help real wages. Mr Summers points out that prices of things-made-of-widgets have fallen remarkably in past decades; America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics reckons that today you could get the equivalent of an early 1980s television for a twentieth of its then price, were it not that no televisions that poor are still made. However, prices of things not made of widgets, most notably college education and health care, have shot up. If people lived on widgets alone— goods whose costs have fallen because of both globalisation and technology—there would have been no pause in the increase of real wages. It is the increase in the prices of stuff that isn’t mechanised (whose supply is often under the control of the state and perhaps subject to fundamental scarcity) that means a pay packet goes no further than it used to.So technological progress squeezes some incomes in the short term before making everyone richer in the long term, and can drive up the costs of some things even more than it eventually increases earnings. As innovation continues, automation may bring down costs in some of those stubborn areas as well, though those dominated by scarcity—such as houses in desirable places—are likely to resist the trend, as may those where the state keeps market forces at bay. But if innovation does make health care or higher education cheaper, it will probably be at the cost of more jobs, and give rise to yet more concentration of income.The machine stopsEven if the long-term outlook is rosy, with the potential for greater wealth and lots of new jobs, it does not mean that policymakers should simply sit on their hands in the mean time. Adaptation to past waves of progress rested on political and policy responses. The most obvious are the massive improvements in educational attainment brought on first by the institution of universal secondary education and then by the rise of university attendance. Policies aimed at similar gains would now seem to be in order. But as Mr Cowen has pointed out, the gains of the 19th and 20th centuries will be hard to duplicate.Boosting the skills and earning power of the children of 19th-century farmers and labourers took little more than offering schools where they could learn to read, write and do algebra. Pushing a large proportion of college graduates to complete graduate work successfully will be harder and more expensive. Perhaps cheap and innovative online education will indeed make new attainment possible. But as Mr Cowen notes, such programmes may tend to deliver big gains only for the most conscientious students.Another way in which previous adaptation is not necessarily a good guide to future employment is the existence of welfare. The alternative to joining the 19th-century industrial proletariat was malnourished deprivation. Today, because of measures introduced in response to, and to some extent on the proceeds of, industrialisation, people in the developed world are provided with unemployment benefits, disability allowances and other forms of welfare. They are also much more likely than a bygone peasant to have savings. This means that the “reservation wage”—the wage below which a worker will not accept a job—is now high in historical terms. If governments refuse to allow jobless workers to fall too far below the average standard of living, then this reservation wage will rise steadily, and ever more workers may find work unattractive. And the higher it rises, the greater the incentive to invest in capital that replaces labour.Everyone should be able to benefit from productivity gains—in that, Keynes was united with his successors. His worry about technological unemployment was mainly a worry about a “temporary phase of maladjustment” as society and the economy adjusted to ever greater levels of productivity. So it could well prove. However, society may find itself sorely tested if, as seems possible, growth and innovation deliver handsome gains to the skilled, while the rest cling to dwindling employment opportunities at stagnant wages