24 ms·

I think there are at least two errors with your reasoning: one is that people don’t have inherent (economic) value that is captured by working for wages. If a r

I think there are at least two errors with your reasoning: one is that people don’t have inherent (economic) value that is captured by working for wages. If a robot does my job, why would I feel entitled to capture any value? The second is the idea that the owners are less likely to circulate money in the economy than the employees. There’s no value to the owner in sitting on that money, so why would they?

dyeje 7y ago
First, it's not that they are 'entitled' to the value, it's that our entire economic model is based on continuous consumption. If vast swathes of the population have no way to get money because robots do the work and only the wealthiest capture the value, then it collapses because there is nobody with money to consume the goods produced. Second, the point you're getting at is trickle down economics. Personally, I don't think it works.