3 ms·

Not necessarily. The benefits may barely trickle down, and the conditions for the majority could degrade overall.

• daniel_iversen 1y ago
  Yeah it’s a complicated picture and of course nobody knows, but it would be helpful to split “benefits” into things like; - net benefits to the average person (considering drawbacks) - overall relative benefits compared to income groups - benefits in certain areas of society and topics I think there’ll be some “benefits for all” in terms of things like medical advances and health technology. There will also be broader benefits to all in general areas but as a parent poster said it’ll benefit equity holders most and there might be some bad tradeoffs (like we’ll have access to much better information and entertainment but it may also affect the overall employment rate). It’s a very nuanced picture and it’s probably disingenuous of some tech leaders to say “we’ll all benefit) but some do believe that will be the future.
• simianwords 1y ago
  Based on what evidence? The last few times this happened the whole world benefitted.
  • aborsy 1y ago
    Based on extensive academic research on trickle-down economics, in particular looking into the evolution of real wages of different sectors of population, since 1980s. See the work of recent Nobel prize laureates in economics. Many argue for redistribution and investment back to the society.
    • simianwords 1y ago
      But the past few revolutions benefitted everyone and we are better off. Look at industrial revolution, digital revolution. Why do you think it is different this time? If trickle down economics don't work, why is world poverty at all time low and consumption at all time high?
      • aborsy 1y ago
        As noted, this refers to Reagan policies and onward.
        • simianwords 1y ago
          Even after Reagan's policies how do your points hold?
          • abenga 1y ago
            Because we are counting people's wealth in significant fractions of a trillion dollars and young people around the world cannot afford homes no more?
            • simianwords 1y ago
              Prices of houses increased but others decreased. Life expectancy increased, consumption increased.
              • grafmax 1y ago
                “Phones not homes.”
              • m000 1y ago
                Consumption of overpriced crap, a.k.a. the lipstick effect [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_effect
      • pyrale 1y ago
        > Look at industrial revolution I really don't see how one can separate the industrial revolution from colonialism, considering we have chiefs of government in colonial countries on the record saying that colonies are a necessary outlet for industrial goods [1]. Once you've established that link, it's hard to explain that "everyone" benefitted from the industrial revolution. Even disregarding that, the working conditions created by industrialization allowed for situations that can hardly be described as "beneficial" [2][3][4]. > digital revolution. [5] provided without comment. --- [1]: for instance, Jules Ferry: https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/decouvrir-l-assemblee/histoire/grands-discours-parlementaires/jules-ferry-28-juillet-1885 https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/decouvrir-l-assemblee/hi... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
  • squidbeak 1y ago
    When have we ever had a push to full automation?