• blackbelt352@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    The basics of Supply and Demand. If automation means more consistent and bigger Supply, then prices will* come down and more of the Demand will be able to afford the goods and services in the Supply. Larger supply means cheaper prices, possibly to the point where value becomes basically meaningless.

    *assuming that Supply isn’t artificially limited by the owners of industry to protect their own profits. If only someone wrote a series of books and pamphlets about how the owners would do everything they can to protect their profits.

    • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      But, you say “afford” like it’s something people will freely be able to achieve. My question again is- if no one is working- nothing is afforded by anyone.

      The entitled masses today are the same as they’ve ever been. Ask the one question the refuse to answer, and get drivel and theory in return.

      Anti-work is a ridiculous notion that some kids unfortunately took seriously.

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll take “How to completely miss the point of what I wrote” for 1000 Alex.

        I never said anything about anti-work* and I literally addressed the point about how high production and automation and plentiful Supply drives prices down.

        *Which it seems like you’re assuming people won’t do any labor and instead it’s people won’t work bullshit jobs that don’t actually do anything productive and can actually more choose what they work on instead of working for the benefit of the industry owners

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well, the hypothetical is essentially a post scarcity “economy”, if there is zero demand for “work”, then work would have to be uncoupled from livelihood in some way.

        A crap outcome would be to meaninglessly keep toiling at work that we could automate because we are afraid of dealing with consequences of a big labor surplus.

        However, this is a hypothetical, and even if it starts becoming a reality, it’s going to be awkward when we can’t meaningfully have “work” for everyone but we still need work for some people.

        I will agree that the hard core antiwork folks that say today we could get by with everyone only doing what they wanted for fun are unrealistic. However it’ll be… Interesting to see how we might navigate possibilities.