[jacooper]

Assuming this happens without any violence, which I truly doubt. Huge socioeconomic changes like this always come as a result of violence and uproar.

[eru]

Why? Eg in the latter half of the 20th century the US integrated women into the workforce (almost doubling the population eligible for participation in the labourforce), without violence or uproar.

There was also remarkably little uproar nor violence when the Czech Republic escaped the Iron Curtain and embraced capitalism.

[jacooper]

Integrating women into the workforce is not even close to abolishing private capital and the need to work.

The violence would be between billionaires with infinite automation making infinite money, and common folk with no way to eat.

[replygirl]

What you're responding to doesn't propose the abolition of obligatory work or private capital, it proposes a decrease in labor hours commensurate with, or conservative in comparison to, an expected increase in productivity

[jacooper]

Yeah sorry about that, but do you think its realistic? I mean productivity has been going high since a long time yet we are still 5 or 6 workweek.

[eru]

Now that's a reasonable debate we can have!

Gains from increases in productivity in the last hundred years[0] seem to be spread between more consumption, shorter working hours[1].

Some people expected that most gains would go towards decreased working hours instead of the spread we have actually seen. Not sure there's much significance behind that?

[0] Or any span of time you might want to pick.

[1] And bigger bureaucratic overheads, but you can count that either as a weird form of consumption or as just productivity not having increased quite as fast.