3 ms·
If you are free from physical and mental labor, you are in fact, not supplying labor, and are therefore surplus to requirements.
by FuckButtons 3mo ago
If you are free from physical and mental labor, you are in fact, not supplying labor, and are therefore surplus to requirements.
- auggierose 3mo agoWhose requirements?
- esafak 3mo agoThe employer's, whose salary affords your subsistence.
- visarga 3mo agoIf AI is so great it can do your job it is good enough to provide for your needs directly by automation. Just buy a robot and a plot of land and you don't have to worry about jobs.
- esafak 3mo agoRobots can't do that yet, and even then you still need to pay for food, healthcare, land (taxes), transportation, etc.
- auggierose 3mo agoI don't think anyone wants to be employed. They want the money that comes with employment. If you can make get money without employment, like rich kids, for example, I think most people would prefer that.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- feoren 3mo agoAnd you think that once the poor are no longer needed by the rich, the rich will decide to just give them money anyway? We already have dedicated campaigns to make sure people die sick and homeless on the streets when they become obsolete. You think that is not going to get much, much worse?
- a2ff6eeb0 3mo agoYeah, better not be poor when the AI comes.
- auggierose 3mo agoI think everyone should become rich. That is the goal of AI, isn't it?
- SJMG 3mo agoSo who gets to live in Montecito?
- auggierose 3mo agoI don't care about Montecito. Harry and Meghan apparently neither. Being rich doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. But it means you can choose not to do what you don't want.
- SJMG 3mo agoLike not-not live in Montecito? Not everyone can be rich by your definition.
- auggierose 3mo agoLet me be just for a second here be an intuitionist: not (not M) does not imply M. Everyone can be rich. But not everyone can be Montecito-rich.