3 ms·
I hear a lot of technologists with this opinion, basically that the way it's worked out for the last 150 years will continue work out. But I think there is def
by dasil003 11y ago
I hear a lot of technologists with this opinion, basically that the way it's worked out for the last 150 years will continue work out.
But I think there is definitely cause for concern, not because of x or y class of jobs going away, but two factors: 1) the concentration of wealth increasing at the same time that increased taxation on the rich is political anathema, even though they pay only a fraction of the tax rate that they paid the last time income disparities were this wide a centry ago. 2) an unabated hunger for exponential growth in the consumption of natural resources with no serious economic thought given to the long-term viability of assumed infinite growth and what externalities we are ignoring to our own peril.
It's very easy to sit here as a privileged class of software elites who have no realistic risk of becoming unemployable—or even just as an the average human in a first world country who has a relatively low risk of global economies collapsing during our lifetime—and just hand-wave away these concerns. But personally I think we need to start thinking harder about sustainability and egalitarianism in society if we ever want to achieve the fabled post-scarcity economy, because at the moment we seem to be in a greed-driven economy which will never recognize itself driving off a cliff until it's too late.
- andrewmutz 11y agoRegarding #1, increasing taxation on the rich is much more politically feasible than implementing basic income. Regarding #2, economics is all about managing scarcity. What natural resource consumption specifically are you concerned about not being effectively controlled by pricing mechanisms? And it's the role of government to fix market failures when externalities are being ignored. Which are you concerned about?