[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and thousands of small towns everywhere where the main industry was coal/minerals or other resources that were outdated and left to poverty.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.