4 ms·

I don't see how that scenario makes any sense. If the rich and upper middle class could maintain such lifestyles by themselves + automation then why wouldn't ot

by s_m_t 9y ago

I don't see how that scenario makes any sense. If the rich and upper middle class could maintain such lifestyles by themselves + automation then why wouldn't others have access to it?? Will the robots refuse to work for the poor?

anotherbrownguy 9y ago
THIS. If richer people can automate their lifestyles, the companies selling automation technologies would definitely sell these automation technologies cheaply to the masses (specially given that because of automation, mass producing automation technologies would also be cheap) and everyone would be able to automate everything that can be automated. I think this would eventually lead to less inequality, not more.
- twblalock 9y ago
  This has happened before, with vacuum cleaners, washers and dryers, dishwashers, etc. They replaced some of the labor of maids and servants in rich households, and many of the family's chores in everyone else's households. In fact, they benefitted the poor more than the rich, because the rich already paid people to do these things for them, and the poor could not.
drspacemonkey 9y ago
>Will the robots refuse to work for the poor? Whoever owns the robots would likely refuse to let the robots work without the owners getting paid. And even if labour is (effectively) free, resources aren't.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Yes this was the exact scenario in Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano.
coldtea 9y ago
>I don't see how that scenario makes any sense. If the rich and upper middle class could maintain such lifestyles by themselves + automation then why wouldn't others have access to it?? Will the robots refuse to work for the poor? No, the poor simply wouldn't afford either robots or one of the remaining jobs to make enough money to buy one. And nobody would care for them. They might not even get to vote anymore. It's either Star Trek style socialism, UBI (and trailer-park-like sub-par living for those receiving it) or direct slums. And those with power and privilege will tend towards the latter two. Besides, money is just a means to get material wealth and power today. If automation (+ maybe 1/10th the workers, office drones, and service workers) can maintain that material wealth, the "working economy" will be what happens between that 1/10th of the population. They wont be selling robots and other goods to the poor masses, for the same reason they don't sell houses, cars and computers to the poor masses in slums in India, Mexico and elsewhere. Either the economy needs them, and raises them from poverty (e.g. by giving them a factory job like in China or early USA), or it doesn't and it neglects them. The small new rich/upper middle class that will form wont particular care for those outside it, the same way most middle class people never care about the tens of millions of "trailer trash" in the US or the homeless. It's not like many ask themselves everyday 'why don't we help our trailer part people' or do anything about.

by s_m_t 9y ago

anotherbrownguy 9y ago

THIS. If richer people can automate their lifestyles, the companies selling automation technologies would definitely sell these automation technologies cheaply to the masses (specially given that because of automation, mass producing automation technologies would also be cheap) and everyone would be able to automate everything that can be automated. I think this would eventually lead to less inequality, not more.

twblalock 9y ago
This has happened before, with vacuum cleaners, washers and dryers, dishwashers, etc. They replaced some of the labor of maids and servants in rich households, and many of the family's chores in everyone else's households. In fact, they benefitted the poor more than the rich, because the rich already paid people to do these things for them, and the poor could not.

drspacemonkey 9y ago

>Will the robots refuse to work for the poor? Whoever owns the robots would likely refuse to let the robots work without the owners getting paid. And even if labour is (effectively) free, resources aren't.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Yes this was the exact scenario in Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano.

coldtea 9y ago

>I don't see how that scenario makes any sense. If the rich and upper middle class could maintain such lifestyles by themselves + automation then why wouldn't others have access to it?? Will the robots refuse to work for the poor? No, the poor simply wouldn't afford either robots or one of the remaining jobs to make enough money to buy one. And nobody would care for them. They might not even get to vote anymore. It's either Star Trek style socialism, UBI (and trailer-park-like sub-par living for those receiving it) or direct slums. And those with power and privilege will tend towards the latter two. Besides, money is just a means to get material wealth and power today. If automation (+ maybe 1/10th the workers, office drones, and service workers) can maintain that material wealth, the "working economy" will be what happens between that 1/10th of the population. They wont be selling robots and other goods to the poor masses, for the same reason they don't sell houses, cars and computers to the poor masses in slums in India, Mexico and elsewhere. Either the economy needs them, and raises them from poverty (e.g. by giving them a factory job like in China or early USA), or it doesn't and it neglects them. The small new rich/upper middle class that will form wont particular care for those outside it, the same way most middle class people never care about the tens of millions of "trailer trash" in the US or the homeless. It's not like many ask themselves everyday 'why don't we help our trailer part people' or do anything about.