If you were somehow looking forward to a jobless future, what with robots taking over the workplace, you may be waiting a long, long time.
Scientists, businesses and media pundits can't stop talking about the "unprecedented" pace of technological change and the risk that up to 40 per cent of jobs could be automated.
This week Elon Musk, himself at the cutting edge of developing driverless cars, added to the hype by predicting robots would replace so many jobs countries would be forced to implement a universal basic income.
For University of Melbourne professor Jeff Borland, the rise of the robots makes for "a sexy story". The problem is there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
The widely respected labour economist and self-confessed contrarian has caused a stir with his study Are Robots Taking Our Jobs?, which revealed automation's effect on the workplace was "vastly overstated".
The paper prompted inquiries from Department of Employment analysts and senior union leaders skeptical of the robot hype and has highlighted a long-standing divide between technologists and economists.
Borland, along with fellow Melbourne uni economist, Michael Coelli, rigorously mapped out the shifts in demand over time for jobs with routine skills – the kind of work technology is replacing.
They discovered that the trend away from routinised jobs today was no different than was going on back in the 1970s and the 1980s, well before the introduction of computers into the workplace in the 1990s.
Moreover, the pace of job turnovers was no greater today than it was in the late 1960s. Borland theorises that, just as has been the case with waves of automation since the industrial revolution, technology is creating jobs as fast as it is eradicating them.
New digital technologies have increased demand for software designers, programmers and managers, while lower costs of production from automation have resulted in higher real incomes that in turn lead to more demand and more jobs.