3 ms·

The ugly reality is that the effect of automation seems to be further stratifying the haves from the have-nots. By definition, automation makes things cheaper a

by angdis 14y ago

The ugly reality is that the effect of automation seems to be further stratifying the haves from the have-nots. By definition, automation makes things cheaper and more profitable by taking away jobs. If there aren't OTHER JOBS also created, we have a situation where the owners are systematically getting richer and the workers are systematically getting poorer.

joonix 14y ago
Isn't that the end result of capitalism? To optimize returns on capital. It says nothing about labor or workers.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Well yes, but there were previously variously reasons to either sincerely believe, or argue-against for ideological reasons, the notion that capitalism must impoverish everyone who isn't a capitalist. As it is, I think the Coming Model is going to have to be some extended form of Danish-style "Flexicurity": a market economy with the means of production under mixed control (nationalization of common assets but no seizing private wealth), near-complete market flexibility, but a system of social insurances and social dividends that share out some portion of the total wealth and prevent actual poverty and destitution for everyone. Then we'll see what people will actually create under such a model. It could well end up like the late '40s and the '50s-'60s: with a crisis resolved, demand is liberated, what had been financial wealth is converted into a real standard-of-living rise, and whole loads of new products and professions open up that can only exist because the working class is now secure and prosperous enough to support them.
- afterburner 14y ago
  I thought capitalism was centered around labour providing value and being rewarded accordingly? I'm not sure myself. Although the other inputs to production are land and capital goods, the latter of which could I suppose be interpreted as "the robots that will take care of everything".
forrestthewoods 14y ago
And yet the "have nots" of today have far more than the haves from yesteryear. An increase in the difference of relative wealth is not fundamentally bad if the absolute wealth increases for everybody. Of course no one thinks like this.
- bjustin 14y ago
  Some of them do. Some people (still) can't afford as much nutritious food as they should be eating. Any cuts to food stamps, reduced and free school lunches, etc., will make the situation worse. Some "conservatives" are seriously talking about cutting these programs.

by angdis 14y ago

joonix 14y ago

Isn't that the end result of capitalism? To optimize returns on capital. It says nothing about labor or workers.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Well yes, but there were previously variously reasons to either sincerely believe, or argue-against for ideological reasons, the notion that capitalism must impoverish everyone who isn't a capitalist. As it is, I think the Coming Model is going to have to be some extended form of Danish-style "Flexicurity": a market economy with the means of production under mixed control (nationalization of common assets but no seizing private wealth), near-complete market flexibility, but a system of social insurances and social dividends that share out some portion of the total wealth and prevent actual poverty and destitution for everyone. Then we'll see what people will actually create under such a model. It could well end up like the late '40s and the '50s-'60s: with a crisis resolved, demand is liberated, what had been financial wealth is converted into a real standard-of-living rise, and whole loads of new products and professions open up that can only exist because the working class is now secure and prosperous enough to support them.
afterburner 14y ago
I thought capitalism was centered around labour providing value and being rewarded accordingly? I'm not sure myself. Although the other inputs to production are land and capital goods, the latter of which could I suppose be interpreted as "the robots that will take care of everything".

forrestthewoods 14y ago

And yet the "have nots" of today have far more than the haves from yesteryear. An increase in the difference of relative wealth is not fundamentally bad if the absolute wealth increases for everybody. Of course no one thinks like this.

bjustin 14y ago
Some of them do. Some people (still) can't afford as much nutritious food as they should be eating. Any cuts to food stamps, reduced and free school lunches, etc., will make the situation worse. Some "conservatives" are seriously talking about cutting these programs.