4 ms·

> The answer lies in recognizing that wages are just one source of income. People also earn income from investments.... I already can see the slant that, this

> The answer lies in recognizing that wages are just one source of income. People also earn income from investments.... I already can see the slant that, this whole article is going to be about. Capital holders are going to be the only people matter. Everyone else is trivial. i.e. the top 5% who hold 80% of all wealth in the world. >Consider Qatar as a point of comparison. Migrant workers make up roughly 94% of the country’s workforce, yet only Qatari citizens, who make up the remaining 6%, are eligible to receive most government welfare benefits. My father was one among those 94%. Stayed away from my family for more than a decade, only visiting us for 2 months every 2 years. Leaving with tears in his eyes every time. Qatar shouldn't be a point of comparison for capitalism. With no way for naturalization, a strong monarchy, and Labor oppression. I think it's the opposite of free trade capitalism as preached by the west. What I got from this article was. More money for me, and none for the peasants, but that's okay because they or their work don't matter anyway.

constantcrying 1y ago
The article is equating automation technologies to the laborers in Qatar and humans in General to the Qatari. The comparison is bad and yes the article is ridiculous, but it does not argue for human oppression or capital accumulation in a small minority of humans, it argues that in fact such an accumulation will be meaningless.
- suriya-ganesh 1y ago
  > But there is a risk that those who own negligible amounts of capital prior to full automation will be out of luck. With nothing but their wages to survive on, they may live dreary lives, and perhaps even starve. However, at least for citizens of high-income democracies, this risk seems to be quite small. And then the article goes on to explain, how historically governments have always redistributed wealth from rich to the poor. The wealthy were incentivized to provide for the bottom of the population only because there was need for labour for the wealth to stay alive. but then, going by the article's analogy when there is no need for labour, there is no need for the bottom 75% as well.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    You are arguing with the article, not with me.
    - suriya-ganesh 1y ago
      Yes.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
myth_drannon 1y ago
"Migrant workers", call a spade a spade. Slave labour it is. 6500 of them died building stadiums for the soccer World Cup

constantcrying 1y ago

The article is equating automation technologies to the laborers in Qatar and humans in General to the Qatari. The comparison is bad and yes the article is ridiculous, but it does not argue for human oppression or capital accumulation in a small minority of humans, it argues that in fact such an accumulation will be meaningless.

suriya-ganesh 1y ago
> But there is a risk that those who own negligible amounts of capital prior to full automation will be out of luck. With nothing but their wages to survive on, they may live dreary lives, and perhaps even starve. However, at least for citizens of high-income democracies, this risk seems to be quite small. And then the article goes on to explain, how historically governments have always redistributed wealth from rich to the poor. The wealthy were incentivized to provide for the bottom of the population only because there was need for labour for the wealth to stay alive. but then, going by the article's analogy when there is no need for labour, there is no need for the bottom 75% as well.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  You are arguing with the article, not with me.
  - suriya-ganesh 1y ago
    Yes.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

myth_drannon 1y ago

"Migrant workers", call a spade a spade. Slave labour it is. 6500 of them died building stadiums for the soccer World Cup