You’re damn right it is. The exact math isn’t important for our conversation, but the point is that the savings gained through automation should be shared with the workers.
If anyone should be getting the gains of that automation it’s the people that built it and improved output per person. Not the people that in no way contributed anything at all towards progress.
UBI, lower taxes, free public transport, free education.
Many manys I would agree with that. But what you suggest is too difficult and too distorting of the market.
Say a job get improved because the new version of Microsoft Office is 5% better but no one gets laid off. You can’t even begin to work out things like that.
They can make competitive decisions that aren’t at the cost of society.
Society can be better at dealing with competition.
How much do you think a farm labourer should be paid out of curiosity? Half of what has been saved in wages? That’s a hell of a lot of money.
You’re damn right it is. The exact math isn’t important for our conversation, but the point is that the savings gained through automation should be shared with the workers.
No the saving should be divided with society.
If anyone should be getting the gains of that automation it’s the people that built it and improved output per person. Not the people that in no way contributed anything at all towards progress.
I don’t disagree, but workers are a part of society too and if automation increases the productivity of the workers, they should get more too.
UBI, lower taxes, free public transport, free education.
Many manys I would agree with that. But what you suggest is too difficult and too distorting of the market.
Say a job get improved because the new version of Microsoft Office is 5% better but no one gets laid off. You can’t even begin to work out things like that.