5 ms·

> If most of the economy were efficiently automated, then you would barely need an income to survive or thrive. $prices = ($prices * 0.9) $income = ($income *

> If most of the economy were efficiently automated, then you would barely need an income to survive or thrive. $prices = ($prices * 0.9) $income = ($income * 0.0) If most of the benefits from robots flow to the 0.1% who own them, and most of the costs of robots fall on the rest of the population who work for a living, they can be accounted for as a net good to society while being disastrous in practice.

jdreaver 12y ago
$income goes to zero for that particular person at the time they lose their job, yes, but all of their prices for every good that gets automated goes down. If we repeatedly make everything cheaper, then a low income doesn't matter. Everyone is richer in the sense that a particular good is cheaper. Also, I very highly doubt that income would reach zero. People wouldn't have to work 40 hours a week, sure, but would everyone just sit around with their thumbs up their butts not knowing how to provide value to others? I think the assertion that all income would go to the rich needs some evidence.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  "$income goes to zero for that particular person at the time they lose their job, yes, but all of their prices for every good that gets automated goes down. " And what good does that do the people who no longer have any income? "If we repeatedly make everything cheaper, then a low income doesn't matter." Where are these people getting any income? "People wouldn't have to work 40 hours a week, sure, but would everyone just sit around with their thumbs up their butts not knowing how to provide value to others?" Not everyone, but a majority of people, probably.
- knieveltech 12y ago
  I was standing in line at the grocery store last week and overheard a father talking to his son about purchasing some item of candy from the display at the register. Son (holding up candy): Dad can you get this for me? Father: No. Son: It's only a dollar. That's not a lot of money. Father: Do you have four quarters? Son: No Father: A dollar is a lot when you don't have it.
- sitkack 12y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM

jdreaver 12y ago

$income goes to zero for that particular person at the time they lose their job, yes, but all of their prices for every good that gets automated goes down. If we repeatedly make everything cheaper, then a low income doesn't matter. Everyone is richer in the sense that a particular good is cheaper. Also, I very highly doubt that income would reach zero. People wouldn't have to work 40 hours a week, sure, but would everyone just sit around with their thumbs up their butts not knowing how to provide value to others? I think the assertion that all income would go to the rich needs some evidence.

s73v3r 12y ago
"$income goes to zero for that particular person at the time they lose their job, yes, but all of their prices for every good that gets automated goes down. " And what good does that do the people who no longer have any income? "If we repeatedly make everything cheaper, then a low income doesn't matter." Where are these people getting any income? "People wouldn't have to work 40 hours a week, sure, but would everyone just sit around with their thumbs up their butts not knowing how to provide value to others?" Not everyone, but a majority of people, probably.
knieveltech 12y ago
I was standing in line at the grocery store last week and overheard a father talking to his son about purchasing some item of candy from the display at the register. Son (holding up candy): Dad can you get this for me? Father: No. Son: It's only a dollar. That's not a lot of money. Father: Do you have four quarters? Son: No Father: A dollar is a lot when you don't have it.
sitkack 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM