3 ms·

> The coming issue is that our software is getting better at replacing jobs faster than new jobs can be created That is a pretty big assumption right there. Th

by kfk 11y ago

> The coming issue is that our software is getting better at replacing jobs faster than new jobs can be created That is a pretty big assumption right there. There is no absolute amount of jobs being created, right? I mean, wouldn't you pay $1 per hour to have your shirts ironed? Then is it a problem of jobs count or jobs pay? It's pay, isn't it? If it's pay, then you are asking the wrong question. The question would be: is software making jobs cheaper? That is a very tough question. Implications are not that clear: from one end you cut jobs, from the other you are improving the productivity of your economy. With more productivity you get... you guessed it: more wealth. Then what's the problem? It's a problem of wealth distribution isn't it? It's wealth concentration in few segments of the population. That is a completely different problem then what you just said. Wealth distribution has nothing to do with value created and it's a topic in its own way. Bottom line: it's not about how many jobs you have, but how spread is the wealth your economy is creating and how spread it's going to be in the future.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
My 'jobs are being replaced faster than created' has an implied 'and our economic model doesn't otherwise change' to it when I state that it is a problem. Now you can disagree with the notion that jobs are being replaced faster than created and even take the stance that such a thing will never happen. But assuming you don't disagree that this will eventually happen (eventually here meaning in our lifetime or maybe our children's; not counting thousands of years down the road), then it is going to be a problem. Yes, it is only a problem because of how our economic situation is set up, but all of that isn't the bit that changed that created our problem. And yes, changing the economic set up can resolve the problem. But the problem itself remains the same (unless you disagree with it ever happening).

by kfk 11y ago

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

My 'jobs are being replaced faster than created' has an implied 'and our economic model doesn't otherwise change' to it when I state that it is a problem. Now you can disagree with the notion that jobs are being replaced faster than created and even take the stance that such a thing will never happen. But assuming you don't disagree that this will eventually happen (eventually here meaning in our lifetime or maybe our children's; not counting thousands of years down the road), then it is going to be a problem. Yes, it is only a problem because of how our economic situation is set up, but all of that isn't the bit that changed that created our problem. And yes, changing the economic set up can resolve the problem. But the problem itself remains the same (unless you disagree with it ever happening).