> Who mostly can't be retrained to be engineers, even if we needed that many engineers... I didn't say they will become engineers. A low-class worker will stay

> Who mostly can't be retrained to be engineers, even if we needed that many engineers... I didn't say they will become engineers. A low-class worker will stay in low-class work, but there will still be demand for it. Even if the market doesn't demand it, the government is there as a buyer of last resort. Again, there's always something to do. There's always something to improve, to build or to repair. Where do you think work came from before capitalism? The argument for capitalism is that it's generally more efficient than government at allocating resources and creating wealth. If that fails, we can still fall back to something else. > Never mind Marxism or Socialism or Capitalism - when Labor has nothing left of value to offer, where do they go? What leverage do they have? They can riot. > When weaving machines came in 1760, the weavers didn't just get reeducated or reallocated - they starved and died, along with their families. If this was a historical fact and not a figment of your imagination, it would be repeated at every opportunity where "the dangers of automation" were discussed.