|
|
|
|
|
by glesica
4000 days ago
|
|
> All the more reason we as a society need to come up with a better solution to "unskilled people need to eat" beyond blaming the greed of silicon valley companies. I think part of the reason you see so many people blaming the greed of Silicon Valley companies is that so many "Silicon Valley" people (wealthy and upper-income people associated with Silicon Valley) seem to be ignoring the "unskilled people need to eat" problem or, worse, blaming the "unskilled people" for failing to guess which career paths would be lucrative in the future or for lacking aptitude in those careers. When a non-negligible portion of the conversation actually turns on people who are effectively (or literally, in some extreme cases) calling for a dictatorship of tech companies, you have to expect people to wonder how much Silicon Valley cares about the rest of the world. |
|
But, in post-ownership, only those who own capital have income. We end up with two classes: the monied capital owners (who rent out homes/cars/kitchens/software) and the poor people needing to rent from the capital owners (or work from them at an hourly, non-guaranteed rate).
The joy of that model is it's so much easier for a wealthy person with a little capital (renting 5 apartments in a city) to take that income and buy more capital (buy 5 new apartments to rent out each year), which restricts the ability for "normal" people to participate in the market by eating the fixed supply. Then, snowballing, your return-on-capital income lets you buy more units faster and faster. You get to remove even more capacity from the public market and you get to turn a scarce housing market into a private money spigot.
The age of attracting a 50,000 person factory to your town and filling it with uneducated workers is over. There aren't any future mass-employement systems for unskilled labor that aren't essentially servitude.