3 ms·
You're being confused by the numbers. We aren't trying to maximise consumer spending, the point is to maximise living standards. If the market equilibrium price
by roenxi 1y ago
You're being confused by the numbers. We aren't trying to maximise consumer spending, the point is to maximise living standards. If the market equilibrium price of all goods was $0 consumer spending would be $0 and living standards would be off the charts. It'd be a great outcome.
It just happens that up to this point there have been things that couldn't be done by capital. Now we're entering a world where there isn't such a thing and it is unclear what that implies for the job market. But people not having jobs is hardly a bad thing as long as it isn't forced by stupid policy, ideally nobody has to work.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoIn theory. In reality, how are the benefits of all this efficiency going to be distributed to the people who aren't working? I sure don't see any calls for higher taxes and more wealth redistribution.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoThe source article is an analysis of an interview (https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/ai-jobs-white-collar-unemployment-anthropic https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/ai-jobs-white-collar-unempl...) where the CEO of Anthropic called for higher taxes and more wealth redistribution.
- DrillShopper 1y agoI'm sure the Republican liches in the Senate have some views on that which kill it out of the gate
- ikrenji 1y agoLet's face it ~ almost all work will be automated in the next 50 years. Either capitalism dies or humanity dies
- alluro2 1y agoGiven the current mechanics evident in the society - declining education, healthcare and rising cost of living, homelessness and exploding economic inequality - who is "we", trying to maximise living standards, and what movement do you see leading towards such an outcome?