4 ms·

I may have misunderstood, but I think GP's point is that the ideal number of jobs for any productive endeavor is zero, i.e. "fully automated luxury gay space co

I may have misunderstood, but I think GP's point is that the ideal number of jobs for any productive endeavor is zero, i.e. "fully automated luxury gay space communism". If technology advances to the point where it's the equivalent of waving a magic wand to get energy, food, and resources, that's the ideal state.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
Even in other scenarios e.g. ""semi-automated exploitative capitalism", as CEO, if I can replace expensive human workers with cheaper automated systems, I have reduced costs and the board and shareholders will like it. I think that grandparent's point is that the ideal "limiting case" of this trend is zero human workers. Ideals are not necessarily attainable, but they point the direction of travel. Optimising for "more jobs, more payroll" is not what does or should happen. _edit_ other commenters have pointed out that "clean power makes jobs!" is a political not economic or business reply to "what about the coal jobs?". And if it's true (as seems likely), then it's a stronger statement: "despite efficiency, this is a jobs growth area". If the clean energy sector could be cheaply 100% automated, it would be done for business reasons, leaving the politicians to deal with the fallout of unemployed voters. But then, exactly the same is true of coal energy. Or anything else, really. Aren't there a lot fewer jobs assembling cars now than there used to be? Why is the "rust belt" called that?