3 ms·

Exactly; maybe we can take from this that there is (some) truth in that "nobody wants to work", so we should do something about it with automation, but we also

by stuaxo 4y ago

Exactly; maybe we can take from this that there is (some) truth in that "nobody wants to work", so we should do something about it with automation, but we also need redistribution so that we don't end up in a society where nobody has any money except a few trillionaires.

sokoloff 4y ago
Or maybe, just maybe, people could find a way to break themself off a slice of that wealth by doing or creating something of value and nudging themselves along the number line between $0 and $1T. I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Breaking off a slice of that wealth, which by your own admission, is limited. And so what happens to people who can't? The additional problem to this framing is that anywhere between $0-[amount dictated to provide a stable life, including inflation] is a hellscape and has proven extremely difficult for majority of people to escape from for a variety of reasons. But sure, the solution is everyone being their own boss hashtag entrepreneur... but wait if everyone is their own boss... who do the bosses exploit so they can nudge themselves further down the number line faster than others?
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  >Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands… The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. -- some idiot 50 years ago. Glad things have changed!
- misnome 4y ago
  Yeah, all those people working three part-time jobs and skipping food so their children can eat should just work harder! Becoming a billionaire is definitely from hard work and not at all luck and being born with the tight parents!
- npteljes 4y ago
  Not even "maybe not", rather "definitely not". The issue is not people working or not working; The issue is the distribution of power. If it's not a problem of the people in power, then it won't get solved, easy as that. This is not something that can be solved on the individual level, because due to the population numbers, we now exist in a huge, global, interconnected system of societies, governments, and such. And these issues, at the end of the day, could be solved by evolving, changing that system. And the individuals follow, as their incentives dictate.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
Rather than seizing money and capital why not just make the automation affordable for everyone? That's what's worked in the past with washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, electric ovens, furnaces, cars, power tools, etc. All of those are labour saving devices that have replaced backbreaking physical work that everyone used to have to do on a daily basis. Instead of seizing the means of production you should be designing and selling the means of production to the largest possible audience. With cheap computation and electronics it's now possible to set up a small partially automated factory at home. Wasn't that literally the dream of past communists? The workers having ownership of the means of production and reaping all the rewards of their labour?
pitaj 4y ago
Wealth isn't zero sum.

by stuaxo 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago

Or maybe, just maybe, people could find a way to break themself off a slice of that wealth by doing or creating something of value and nudging themselves along the number line between $0 and $1T. I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work.

waboremo 4y ago
Breaking off a slice of that wealth, which by your own admission, is limited. And so what happens to people who can't? The additional problem to this framing is that anywhere between $0-[amount dictated to provide a stable life, including inflation] is a hellscape and has proven extremely difficult for majority of people to escape from for a variety of reasons. But sure, the solution is everyone being their own boss hashtag entrepreneur... but wait if everyone is their own boss... who do the bosses exploit so they can nudge themselves further down the number line faster than others?
bobkazamakis 4y ago
>Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands… The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. -- some idiot 50 years ago. Glad things have changed!
misnome 4y ago
Yeah, all those people working three part-time jobs and skipping food so their children can eat should just work harder! Becoming a billionaire is definitely from hard work and not at all luck and being born with the tight parents!
npteljes 4y ago
Not even "maybe not", rather "definitely not". The issue is not people working or not working; The issue is the distribution of power. If it's not a problem of the people in power, then it won't get solved, easy as that. This is not something that can be solved on the individual level, because due to the population numbers, we now exist in a huge, global, interconnected system of societies, governments, and such. And these issues, at the end of the day, could be solved by evolving, changing that system. And the individuals follow, as their incentives dictate.

throwaway4aday 4y ago

Rather than seizing money and capital why not just make the automation affordable for everyone? That's what's worked in the past with washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, electric ovens, furnaces, cars, power tools, etc. All of those are labour saving devices that have replaced backbreaking physical work that everyone used to have to do on a daily basis. Instead of seizing the means of production you should be designing and selling the means of production to the largest possible audience. With cheap computation and electronics it's now possible to set up a small partially automated factory at home. Wasn't that literally the dream of past communists? The workers having ownership of the means of production and reaping all the rewards of their labour?

pitaj 4y ago

Wealth isn't zero sum.