4 ms·
> without considering that the more we automate away jobs, the less society will be able to pay for the goods and services that aren't automated. That may not
by ardy42 6y ago
> without considering that the more we automate away jobs, the less society will be able to pay for the goods and services that aren't automated.
That may not matter to those making these automation decisions. Ultimately, ownership is about power and control, not about actually satisfying the needs of the masses. As long as the owners at the top maintain their power and have their personal wants met, they may find the situation acceptable where the market ignores an expanding pool of penniless masses and focuses on a shrinking pool of other elites who still have money (see North Korea for a similar stable result from a different economic system).
- i_haz_rabies 6y agoI agree with you and fully expect this to happen.
- ajsnigrutin 6y agoFor this to work, you need a huge, well paid and loyal army. America has a huge army, but their people have more guns, and pretty much everyone else has less army. By some theories, when a day comes, that fathers are unable too feed their children, the revolution starts, and those usually don't end very well for the elites.
- realce 6y agoI look at the videogame market and see the future of ownership: you don't get to have any. What happens when most of what we use isn't made by humans or ever really owned by any consumer?
- Viliam1234 6y ago> I look at the videogame market and see the future of ownership: you don't get to have any. Everything you have will be only a service... and sometimes people will get locked out of their accounts. Sometimes it will mean losing your videogames, sometimes losing your e-mails (and contacts) and documents saved in cloud... and sometimes losing your home and money. That will be fun.