[Atlas667]

> Looking back at 2025 we'll be saying "Remember when they said everyone would lose their jobs to AI..."

Even if... one would think that a capitalist economy would do great with more and capable workers. One would think that more stuff would get done. Right?

I think there is a good chance that it will, in fact, shift millions towards unemployment. I am pro technology, yet technology in the hands of profit seekers will only be used to seek profits.

It happened during the agricultural revolution and during the industrial revolution. Millions of people were made unemployed by more efficient technology. Millions had to flee the country sides to then be thrown out of factories a few decades later, leading to slums and mass poverty. So many that the government had to enact more and more welfare programs like public schools, and food programs.

Capitalism is the only economic system that cannot handle more workers. For-profit production is not compatible with mass employment.

Almost like capitalism shoots itself in the foot and then forgets about it.

[another_twist]

I dont know if we can draw parallels to something that happened hundred years ago. Since then there has been increases automation yet the unemployment rate esp in the US hasnt budged beyond 4% barring the depression years. I think access to education and opportunities to upskill are crucial for maintaining a sustainable economy. Its helps people just move on esp if they are of working age. With the industrial revolution, technology was hard to get your hands on. You couldnt just buy a cotton mill and start your own business. Not so with AI, for 20 dollars a month you can get access to an employee that mever gets tired. I think if anything, AI might lead to increased competition among businesses and force monopolies to wake from their slumber.

[RainyDayTmrw]

The unemployment rate statistic is a bit misleading, because people who drop out of work permanently don't factor into it.

[Atlas667]

I think there are a bunch of assumptions in your take.

There are billions of us. We cannot all be capitalists and start our own businesses. Literally 100 years ago American socialists like Olive Johnson were already pointing out how the profit motive from large players has ruined mom and pop shops and made medium businesses almost completely beholden to production and finance monopolies.

What do you think will happen with the increased production from AI? Will the capitalist just allow the masses to compete openly with them?

I doubt it. Most likely more monopolization will occur.

Small business owners are the tip (retail) of the massive whole-sale industrial-production monopolies or they are artisans at best. And the masses are the rest of us, the 95%.

Western suburban mentality always posits that these ills cannot happen, even though they were continuously happening even through out the 20th century (Detroit is just one example).

[another_twist]

No I agree with the Detroit example but not all of us have to be capitalists either just a few more. But we would beed more regulations to break down some of these monopolies so we can have more competition and job creation. Either way, its also about being able to add value to the chain. The artisans who make high end clothes still do fine, the thing is the weaver became obsolete with the advent of the spinning machine. The question is in a world where AI can do anything, is human productivity in any form still necessary ? I 'd imagine it is, since humans like talking to humans, somebody still has to go sell or babysit the AI or supervise. So I dont imagine it being as catastrophic as people claim but yeah I'd sharpend my business skills, and keep off massive debt on the off chance we all find ourselves redundant.

[jv22222]

I was imaging at some point it might flip the other way with many business starting where there is a capability for many people to create artisanal setups with 3D printing and even run a specialist artisanal farm with robots.

[Atlas667]

There's Detroit but theres also thousands and thousands of small towns everywhere where the main industry was coal/minerals or other resources that were outdated and left to poverty.

And the "regulation" argument is very popular but I feel it ignores the real problem for us: there is no democracy.

With the regulation argument you're basically hoping that one of the two parties full of billionaires, that we explicitely do not control, shoot themselves in the foot.

And as to adding value to the chain, that is what workers currently do, thats why they get paid. Which is what sparked this argument. The economy is not infinitely flexible, not all will be able to adapt, and according to the rules of capital the adaptation will be competitive and exclusive, so many people will be left out.

[tim333]

>For-profit production is not compatible with mass employment.

I think reality differs. Most countries have for profit production and most have mass employment. Maybe 95% employed and 5% unemployed but it generally muddles along. The masses always seem to vote for it unless they have communism imposed at gunpoint with walls to prevent them escaping.

[philipallstar]

Capitalism has lifted a billion+ people out of poverty by efficiently allocating capital instead of mindlessly "employing" people.

[utyop22]

The nature of poverty is relative and its definition within a territory is a moving target.

[philipallstar]

No, this is a huge problem. If you care more about envy than results, you get the Soviet Union and mass killing and starvation. Or Communist China with mass killing and starvation. The only important, world-changing metric is lifting people out of absolute poverty.

What you're saying would equally apply to a kid annoyed at his dad because his friends have a Ferrari but his family only has a Porsche. It's childish.

[Atlas667]

Thats not the world we live in though.

Most of the world, like 90%+, is verifiably poor and struggling.

Every year the world economic organizations (all of em) pump out metrics about people coming out of poverty, but these are political and subject to bias.

Above 10 dollars a week is not poverty? Are you sure? 521 dollars a year?

And of course not all of the world is poor in the same capacity. Where a person can only eat meat once a week is different to where a person cant pay their rent, but they are both equally damaging and poverty.

What you think has been happening is not what has been happening.

In the Soviet Union and China most people were serfs or indentured servants. That is, the majority of the population.

They were bound by debt to serve either the state or local landlords.

Their revolutions werent acts of jealousy like you want to believe, they were real, spontaneous movements that came from the people. The communists only directed the movement that was already there.

Do not be childish, please read history seriously.

[Atlas667]

Yes, capitalism has been great, and we can do better.

Capitalism has a flaw, it only does what is profitable.

What is profitable is not one and the same with what is socially necessary or even what is good. They're more like analogous.

Like I said before capitalism is the only economic system that cannot handle more workers. If you produce for profit you cannot produce for needs. In a sense profits vs needs are made of the same stuff but dont look the same. Especially at scale.

Employing as many people as possible wouldnt be a problem if you were working for needs because, simply, more needs would be covered.

Its literally that simple. And when there is a true surplus of workers it would mean less work/more leisure.