4 ms·
Why wouldn't the poor end up in a slum, even if it's 50% of the population? You seem to forget that "slums" were not always slums. They used to be reasonably
by Grishnakh 10y ago
Why wouldn't the poor end up in a slum, even if it's 50% of the population?
You seem to forget that "slums" were not always slums. They used to be reasonably nice places to live. (Some of them in the US used to be really nice, posh places to live.) All it takes to turn a nice neighborhood into a slum is a lack of income to keep the houses maintained properly. Human habitats fall apart pretty quickly when they're abandoned or neglected.
- ikt 10y agoBecause if significant amounts of the workforce are replaced there's an implicit assumption that a significant amount of things would be cheaper to provider, if the only cost of creating and supplying food is robot maintenance that means food should be significantly cheaper to produce than now. Coming 2046: P2P food sharing.
- ryandrake 10y ago> Because if significant amounts of the workforce are replaced there's an implicit assumption that a significant amount of things would be cheaper to provider That's a wild assumption. I would predict that it's more likely all that additional value will be captured by already-rich business owners and shareholders, not consumers.
- wolfgke 10y ago> I would predict that it's more likely all that additional value will be captured by already-rich business owners and shareholders, not consumers. If you are concerned about that, lobby to create laws that make it easy for consumers to invest their money into this kind of undertaking.
- aianus 10y agoHistory indicates otherwise, no? I don't think food and manufactured 'stuff' has ever been cheaper relative to median wages than it is now.