4 ms·
I'm confused by the idea that technology will somehow eventually render most of the population jobless. Why should this cause a breakdown of the capitalist syst
by hifier 13y ago
I'm confused by the idea that technology will somehow eventually render most of the population jobless. Why should this cause a breakdown of the capitalist system? These discussions seem to take this for granted without explaining why this is true.
It looks like technology will continue to allow more and more people to pursue business ventures that are less and less related to filling basic needs. We will still consume, we will still find ways to trade that are mutually beneficial. We will simply have a better standard of living. It seems the logical conclusion is that there will be more opportunity for everyone, not less.
Different jobs and different opportunity is not the same as no jobs and no opportunity.
- marcosdumay 13y agoWhat those people will do that we can not create machines that do it cheaper, faster and better?
- hifier 13y agoSo these machines will spontaneously appear?
- marcosdumay 13y agoIf we get there, machines will build them, obviously.
- hifier 13y agoI'm not sure if your comment is in jest. But in a world where machines are primary, the thinkers, the innovators, what use is this discussion at all?
- VLM 13y agoYou may find a study of history to be interesting. What you describe sounds like the European post-western-roman empire dark ages not utopia. How do you intend to consume if none of the consumers have money anymore? How do you intend to trade if the market is polluted by expensive middlemen and centralized .gov pre-selecting the winners and losers? If the standard of living were better in a non-monetary economy in theory, how come it never works that way in practice? Opportunities require money and power to take advantage of them, without either they will not be lost. Why wasn't the (first) Great Depression a paradise on earth? No one had jobs or money. New high technology all over the place. So why exactly would the second Great Depression be any better than the first, if its of basically the same form? Even worse, recall the interesting economic hack used to "fix" the first one? All you need is a world war, and for the survivors, its gets better.
- hifier 13y agoI've either terribly represented my thought, or you have grossly misunderstood my statement. I am arguing FOR a capitalist system. I'm saying I don't understand why the article authors will assume it is going to break down because of technological advances. It has not thus far. Edit: I see that my second statement in my first reply is poorly written. I meant "this" to refer to technological advancement, not to joblessness.