3 ms·
Actually, automation is bad for the economy. Imagine something like Star Trek replicators, maybe a bit different of sorts, how would you still do economy with s
by pixelfarmer 4y ago
Actually, automation is bad for the economy. Imagine something like Star Trek replicators, maybe a bit different of sorts, how would you still do economy with something like that around (and is able to replicate itself so you can make more of these)? Automation kills economy, because economy means humans have to spend time to do the work and split work to fulfill their needs -- which is why economy exists in the first place: You make weapon, I go hunting with that for us both, this kinda stuff. If all that is done by machines, there is no need for any of that anymore: Economy = dead.
What the IBM CEO is on about is the boomers dropping like flies out of the workforce now and the generations following are much less in numbers (demographics and all that). Which means this will put more pressure on automation of various things. But it will also put more pressure on how to do taxes and other such things, because a lot of that isn't prepared for "inverted" population pyramids, automation, and related issues.
- Oxidation 4y agoThere's a lot more "economy" you can do with automation, though. Automatic switched-packet routing has enabled a lot of value-add over fully-manual postal systems, for example. There's a reason there was a big knee in the global GDP graph in the mid 1800s: industrialisation, which is too say, automation of previously manual processes. It's far from obvious to me that 100% automation that obviates any need for humans is anywhere in the foreseeable future. What it does mean is that under the current system, capital will continue to tend to concentrate in the machine-owners hands, which might result in not having enough people to sell their goods to, if the rate of wealth concentration exceeds the rate of wealth generation.