2 ms·
A lot of them create their wealth specifically by destroying the ability of others to create wealth for themselves. There are human consequences to automating a
by rainbowmverse 9y ago
A lot of them create their wealth specifically by destroying the ability of others to create wealth for themselves. There are human consequences to automating away entire industries in the time it takes someone to train for them.
Wealth insulates the wealthy from it, at least until millions of people can't find work for long enough that revolution seems like a good idea.
- manigandham 9y agoHow is that actually stopping anyone? It seems you're referring to "ability" as in skills and talents to meet some demand for work, but that changes as it always has throughout history. The world marches on, that is inevitable and we must all adapt, wealthy or not. Someone is going to make progress eventually and it's often just a worker who creates automation or other innovation to change their industry, and as a result creates massive wealth for themselves. This is exactly the competition that the OP seems to think doesn't exist. That's before getting into details like how many new ventures take investment from the wealthy to become viable in the first place, thereby helping everyone involved. I fully agree that the pace of change and inadequate societal policies can create harsh conditions at times, but the perspective that that the wealthy have taken everything and nobody else can have it is just a simplistic, inaccurate, and unhelpful outlook on capitalism.