4 ms·
That's not quite true. If you took a single production line and replaced the workers with robots - then yes. Those workers have lost their jobs. However if th
by goldcd 7y ago
That's not quite true.
If you took a single production line and replaced the workers with robots - then yes. Those workers have lost their jobs.
However if there was a second hypothetical production line that made a product that was now economically viable (or just cheaper) by partially automating it, then that's made more manual jobs available (maybe the line didn't exist before, or now as the product is cheaper, there can be two lines).
So you've still got people working - and you've now also got cheaper/new stuff for them to buy.
Watch making is a good example. Wherever you are on the planet, you can afford a watch - something that used to require incredible wealth. This is due to new tech and automation. Doesn't mean that nobody's handcrafting cogs with little files, just means that those watches are now only being bought by the wealthy.
- pdimitar 7y agoIn the current economical climate that seems to tilt more and more towards huge inequality (which is already a fact, mind you, it's just tilting even more in the same direction) I think we cannot afford to simply cross our fingers saying "oh well, maybe new jobs will magically appear". Yes it happened in the past, sure. That's not guaranteeing it will happen again this time around though.
- goldcd 7y agoIt'll all work out overall - that's the defining concept of the system. Whether it'll work out for individuals though - well the system doesn't care (and that again is a defining concept)