4 ms·

Because the labor and resources freed up from automation and increased productivity allow us to pursue new things. There's always more to improve upon. Why wou

Because the labor and resources freed up from automation and increased productivity allow us to pursue new things. There's always more to improve upon. Why would this segment of the population not have realistic options for producing marginal value? Everyone is capable of learning new things.

jeremyjh 14y ago
Why would those new things necessarily be labor intensive? Lately most new profitable things require capital.
- nickff 14y ago
  It should generally be presumed that when something has happened repeatedly and predictably in the past, it shall continue to do so.
  - jeremyjh 14y ago
    Until it doesn't - how many draft horses do you see working now? Besides which, we've got over fifty years of history telling us that wealth concentration is happening faster and faster. If just that trend alone continues then within our lifetime most people would not be earning enough to sustain themselves.
  - Crake 14y ago
    We're such a small segment of history, though. We're just a blip on the timeline of the universe. Look at how our population has expanded in the last 100 years alone...some things are just unsustainable.
- saosebastiao 14y ago
  Do they? Cause from my view, the role of capital is greatly diminished, even from 10 years ago. PG has acknowledged as much with their move towards smaller monetary investments in Y Combinator businesses.
  - jeremyjh 14y ago
    pg is a pretty small part of the economy. Still, there is truth in what you are saying but when it comes to developing software there are barriers to entry much more substantial than capital.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      PG is a tiny part of the economy -- but he is also on the bleeding edge. What is true of him will be true of others in 50 years.
Jare 14y ago
> Everyone is capable of learning new things Perhaps not quickly or efficiently enough, but even worse, it's not a given that there will always be enough valuable activities for everyone to perform and earn a wage. This is particularly true when wealth is not evenly distributed. The needs that a small group of wealthy people have for human-created value is, well, small, and therefore wealth barely gets redistributed. Other factors compound this, like the fact that most of the proceeds from a market do not go to the (potentially many) people involved in producing the goods or services, but to those comparatively few with the capital to finance that activity; the chasm between the (so to speak) haves and the have nots grows bigger and bigger. At that point, a significant segment of society simply can't earn a living, and society must adapt to become sustainable again. It's not the kind of thing that happens overnight, but you can see how most forces are pushing in that direction, so without a fundamental change in the dynamics of production, market and compensation, it's not a question of if, but when.

jeremyjh 14y ago

Why would those new things necessarily be labor intensive? Lately most new profitable things require capital.

nickff 14y ago
It should generally be presumed that when something has happened repeatedly and predictably in the past, it shall continue to do so.
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  Until it doesn't - how many draft horses do you see working now? Besides which, we've got over fifty years of history telling us that wealth concentration is happening faster and faster. If just that trend alone continues then within our lifetime most people would not be earning enough to sustain themselves.
- Crake 14y ago
  We're such a small segment of history, though. We're just a blip on the timeline of the universe. Look at how our population has expanded in the last 100 years alone...some things are just unsustainable.
saosebastiao 14y ago
Do they? Cause from my view, the role of capital is greatly diminished, even from 10 years ago. PG has acknowledged as much with their move towards smaller monetary investments in Y Combinator businesses.
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  pg is a pretty small part of the economy. Still, there is truth in what you are saying but when it comes to developing software there are barriers to entry much more substantial than capital.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    PG is a tiny part of the economy -- but he is also on the bleeding edge. What is true of him will be true of others in 50 years.

Jare 14y ago

> Everyone is capable of learning new things Perhaps not quickly or efficiently enough, but even worse, it's not a given that there will always be enough valuable activities for everyone to perform and earn a wage. This is particularly true when wealth is not evenly distributed. The needs that a small group of wealthy people have for human-created value is, well, small, and therefore wealth barely gets redistributed. Other factors compound this, like the fact that most of the proceeds from a market do not go to the (potentially many) people involved in producing the goods or services, but to those comparatively few with the capital to finance that activity; the chasm between the (so to speak) haves and the have nots grows bigger and bigger. At that point, a significant segment of society simply can't earn a living, and society must adapt to become sustainable again. It's not the kind of thing that happens overnight, but you can see how most forces are pushing in that direction, so without a fundamental change in the dynamics of production, market and compensation, it's not a question of if, but when.