4 ms·

Unemployment is not the problem. The problem is that the surplus / wealth created by technology is controlled by the 1%. Redistribute that wealth and the majori

Unemployment is not the problem. The problem is that the surplus / wealth created by technology is controlled by the 1%. Redistribute that wealth and the majority of the workforce will no longer need to be truck drivers, or farmers, or laborers. Then, we can start paying people to learn.

devoply 10y ago
Total wealth in the world 241 trillion / 7 billion people = 34428.5714286/person Might do something for a Mexican, won't do much for me.
zip1234 10y ago
Without truck drivers, farmers, or laborers, the world would have a big problem
- elliotec 10y ago
  Probably not if they are replaced by automation, which is the entire point of this discussion.
eikenberry 10y ago
Well, considering employment is the standard way of redistributing wealth then unemployment is a problem. We need more ways of redistributing wealth. More than we have now anyways which seem to be limited to taxes and employment.
zxcvvcxz 10y ago
I think it makes much more sense to go the other way, reduce regulations so that truck drivers / laborers who think their current setup isn't fair can start their own businesses and get paid what they're worth! But no, you'd rather people put in the effort they want, while arbitrarily rounding out the outcomes. You'd rather subsidize laziness. Socialists don't make good entrepreneurs.
- grp 10y ago
  Socialists never tried (or wanted) to be good entrepreneurs. I think it's ok when you want to end slavery and alienation.
zackmorris 10y ago
I make a good standard of living for my location and I don't really ever spend money so I'm saving it for retirement. If I invest it through standard channels then that mainly benefits the 1% because they control investment banking. I'm thinking that one of the most disruptive things we could do is to invest our money in nonstandard channels. For example, promote systems that solve problems once and for all through research and then place the solutions into the public domain. A handful of engineers working over the span of months or a few short years could automate everything from wifi mesh networks to drone delivery to robotic home gardens. In a very short time we could remove basic need dependency from the system. Kind of like "a penny saved is a penny earned" on steroids. Once people are not dependent on a system that tends towards wealth inequality, it would give them the leverage to demand a basic income because they could choose to no longer buy the goods and services from which the 1% derives its income. I'm not saying that members of the 1% are bad, just that whatever benefits they bring society will likely be commoditized like everything else when full automation provides cheaper (or free) alternatives.
- grp 10y ago
  The 1% have to much power to slow down and to capture (as soon as possible, so when states comes in) that kind of initiatives. Look at the stories of alternatives energies. The trick is here, I think too, but really hard with no free time. edit: Maybe the automatization of the expropriation of the 1% won't be captured..

devoply 10y ago

Total wealth in the world 241 trillion / 7 billion people = 34428.5714286/person Might do something for a Mexican, won't do much for me.

zip1234 10y ago

Without truck drivers, farmers, or laborers, the world would have a big problem

elliotec 10y ago
Probably not if they are replaced by automation, which is the entire point of this discussion.

eikenberry 10y ago

Well, considering employment is the standard way of redistributing wealth then unemployment is a problem. We need more ways of redistributing wealth. More than we have now anyways which seem to be limited to taxes and employment.

zxcvvcxz 10y ago

I think it makes much more sense to go the other way, reduce regulations so that truck drivers / laborers who think their current setup isn't fair can start their own businesses and get paid what they're worth! But no, you'd rather people put in the effort they want, while arbitrarily rounding out the outcomes. You'd rather subsidize laziness. Socialists don't make good entrepreneurs.

grp 10y ago
Socialists never tried (or wanted) to be good entrepreneurs. I think it's ok when you want to end slavery and alienation.

zackmorris 10y ago

I make a good standard of living for my location and I don't really ever spend money so I'm saving it for retirement. If I invest it through standard channels then that mainly benefits the 1% because they control investment banking. I'm thinking that one of the most disruptive things we could do is to invest our money in nonstandard channels. For example, promote systems that solve problems once and for all through research and then place the solutions into the public domain. A handful of engineers working over the span of months or a few short years could automate everything from wifi mesh networks to drone delivery to robotic home gardens. In a very short time we could remove basic need dependency from the system. Kind of like "a penny saved is a penny earned" on steroids. Once people are not dependent on a system that tends towards wealth inequality, it would give them the leverage to demand a basic income because they could choose to no longer buy the goods and services from which the 1% derives its income. I'm not saying that members of the 1% are bad, just that whatever benefits they bring society will likely be commoditized like everything else when full automation provides cheaper (or free) alternatives.

grp 10y ago
The 1% have to much power to slow down and to capture (as soon as possible, so when states comes in) that kind of initiatives. Look at the stories of alternatives energies. The trick is here, I think too, but really hard with no free time. edit: Maybe the automatization of the expropriation of the 1% won't be captured..