This seems right.
The paradox is this. A job seeker is looking for something for a well-defined job. But the trend seems to be that if a job can be defined, it can be automated or outsourced.
The marginal product of people who need well-defined jobs is declining. The marginal product of people who can thrive in less structured environments is increasing. That was what I was trying to say in my jobs speech.
Megan McArdle agrees.
The jobs that are being automated are the stable, well-paying jobs where you could settle in and know exactly what you’d be doing for years. As Arnold says, if you can define it, you can probably outline it specifically enough to outsource, either to a lower-wage worker somewhere else, or to a computer.
To the extent that legal jobs can be well-defined, they can be automated. Creativity, and thinking of new ways to create information, are the keys to maintaining the relevance and vitality of the legal profession.