3 ms·
Can you elaborate on that? Are you thinking of a special theory, or a book explaining that? I know the work from Rifkin, who is arguing for "despite". I unders
by maigret 15y ago
Can you elaborate on that? Are you thinking of a special theory, or a book explaining that? I know the work from Rifkin, who is arguing for "despite".
I understand that the real picture may somehow be different... For example, gains in healthcare may keep more people at work who else wouldn't be able to work. And an elaborate society also allows women to work, increasing the workforce. So I see this is not a black/white issue.
- joe_the_user 15y agoSince I'm commenting on what is or is not obvious, it would seem to me that the argument couldn't be strengthened by background material. The argument is simply that the more things X people can do, the less things there are for a remaining Y people to do. When workers are more productive, total societal demands can be met with fewer workers. Seems intuitively obvious. X factory produces N widgets. If it is can suddenly produce with half the workers, it will fire the others and get profit. It has been argued that in these situations, demand will magically double or jobs will be magically found for these laid-off widget makers. Whatever their long pedigree, it seems to me these arguments only seem plausible because we've trained to believe them. A look at the present world seems to indicate that "what you'd expect without the propaganda" is happening - the laid-off widget makers of all sorts are thrown on the scrap heap with crocodile tears from the finance managers running things.
- maigret 15y agoUh, where was my head? Of course you are right, this is because. I fully agree with you, and my word was obviously wrong. Somehow I still had my original meaning in mind, which was the same as you exposed, and thought you were opposing that. Sorry and thanks for the correction.