3 ms·
Why is it that every year we are capable of producing more, but we keep asking people to accept less? Like how is “we can replace all workers with AI agents” n
by lovich 10mo ago
Why is it that every year we are capable of producing more, but we keep asking people to accept less?
Like how is “we can replace all workers with AI agents” not compatible with “we can extract enough wealth from the new profitability to sustain everyone at the current rate as a service(UBI)”
If we’re more productive after replacing everyone with machines then why can’t we just cover everyone’s basic(victuals/housing/basic utilities+internet) needs?
- lazide 10mo agoUntil people stand up and start setting things on fire, what else do you think is going to happen?
- GolfPopper 10mo agoAs JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- lovich 10mo agoWho cares what he said? He’s not even the top billing at the Kennedy center anymore /s
- nerdponx 10mo agoI'm not sure if you're being facetious, but the answer is that the same mechanism that incentivizes all of this innovation prevents the gains from being distributed evenly. You can get fabulously wealthy if you can be an early mover in bringing important new technology to the market. But then you get to keep that wealth and you don't have to share it with anybody if you don't want to. So that's what ends up happening. There's probably a correct balance somewhere between incentivizing innovation and redistributing income and/or wealth, but then it's hard to preserve that balance because the wealth seekers always have an incentive to lobby for favorable policies, manipulate markets, etc. I do not believe that we as a society have managed to figure out the necessary institutions that could preserve such a balance on a multigenerational time scale.
- lovich 10mo agoI was being facetious. The original capitalist philosophers were incredibly optimistic about how we could use the system to reduce scarcity. I agreed with that viewpoint. If our current system is one where I put in a dollar of effort, and get 99 cents in return at best, it seems like that optimistic viewpoint no longer applies. If that’s the case why should I continue to lend my energy to this system instead of lending it to one that gets me removed from the conversation because it’s against our current leaders desires?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- twoodfin 10mo agoWe don’t ask people to accept less, quite the opposite: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0
- lovich 10mo agoChart that against education and training costs(not just college, let’s include things like trade school or mechanics needing to supply their own tools) and basics like housing. Circuses got cheaper, bread didnt
- twoodfin 10mo ago“Disposable income” is what’s left after debt repayment and essentials like food, health care, and shelter. What did you think it meant? I can’t make sense of your reply.
- lovich 10mo agoAh, and the calculation for what is “essentials” has stayed the same all this time? Does this capture if more people are renting and part of their expenditure on shelter each month is just spent vs a mortgage payment where the principal paid off gets you equity? I legitimately don’t know, but I know that single value graphs trying to summarize a complex situation are useless on their own and need more data to draw any conclusions from
- twoodfin 10mo agoI don’t know, either, but I’ve got data from the Fed, what would you suggest looking at instead?
- lovich 10mo ago> Chart that against education and training costs(not just college, let’s include things like trade school or mechanics needing to supply their own tools) and basics like housing.