Robots Aren’t Destroying Enough Jobs

>Robots Aren’t Destroying Enough Jobs
>Robots should destroy more jobs

if everybody are unemployed because the robots, who buy the robotic production?

Attached: WSJ Columnist- Robots Aren-t Destroying Enough Jobs - Slashdot 8-20-2018 9-59-05 AM.png (1366x666, 70K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc
youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

People who own other robots, duh. If I've got some agricultural robots, I'm going to need some non-agricultural products for myself.

Idk, who bought agricultural products after the invention of the tractor?

false equivalence

>get btfo
>n-n-no!

hahahaahahahhaaha fuck you you piece of shit XD

>buy
If robots are producing shit should be free, but limited. Basically economic communism.

>who buy the robotic production?
Welcome to one of the many contradictions of Captialism that Marx was warning us about since the 1800's. The more work you automate, the less human labour being paid to buy back a now increased amount of produce - this has lead to numerous market crashes throughout the decades, and what we're seeing now is that scenario approaching but with knobs on - full automation of all manual labour, eliminating the need for us to work. Should be one of the greatest achievements of man kind, instead it's a problem for us to work around, ultimately /keeping people in work/ when they /don't have to be/ in order to sustain a /social construct/. Let that sink in.

What if we were the ones who owned the production robots?

Attached: 1200px-Democratic_Socialists_of_America_Logo_%28official%29.svg.png (1200x1152, 77K)

Fuck off you Rosa-killing backstabbing liberals.

>Welcome to one of the many contradictions of Captialism that Marx was warning us about since the 1800's. T
Legitimately stopped reading there. marx wasn't right about anything.

Socialists are leftists, not liberals. While the right tends to conflate the two, there's a significant difference.

Attached: leftist-vs-liberal.jpg (2070x1588, 1.28M)

Besides like, all of his predictions about Capitalism. Like, accumulation of capital, market instability, falling rate of profit..

Yea, and you're not a Socialist. Demsocs kill real Socialists like Rosa Luxemburg. Read Marx and come back when you actually understand what Socialism is.

>You don't understand what true socialism is
Well colour me surprised, that line from a commie? Who would have thought?
Nevertheless, you are a fucking moron. His predictions about capitalism weren't incorrect, but his assumptions about their consequences and his proposed alternatives sucked massive ass. Even a 5 year old can point out the problems with capitalism, but it takes a real genius to figure out to which extent they work over us. Marx wasn't a genius and you certainly aren't one yourself. I am tired of edgy 15 year-olds talking about "HURR DURR LATE STAGE CAPITALISM". Look at my watch kid. It says there it's time you got back to plebbit.

>Besides like, all of his predictions about Capitalism. Like, accumulation of capital, market instability, falling rate of profit..
"Falling rate of profit" is something predicted by neoclassical economics, no need for Marx garbage to tell you that.

"Accumulation of capital" and "Market instability" (instability caused by what? in b4 hurrdurr capitalism) are so vague that they are not worth addressing.

Marxists are economically illiterate.

There are only two main ways mass automation will end and those who lean towards libertarian "free market" beliefs will not like either. Massive layoffs are guaranteed, so millions of people are going to lose their income and this the means to support their families. This means that the government will have to introduce a universal basic income to ensure a living income to everyone. If this is not achieved, then laid off workers and their children will begin to starve and thirst. The longer this goes in without any secure source of income, the more anger will arise out of the working class. They will see the rich living in luxury and comfort while they on the other hand are starving to death. They will then take it upon themselves to revolt and rise up against the bourgeoisie and attempt to seize the means of production in a workers revolution.

Either that or the working class will just accept being starved to death and the population will be reduced by a couple billion.

Regardless, the relationship between the working class and capitalism is about to come to an end.

Attached: poor-family.jpg (440x362, 21K)

Yawn. Brainlets like you have been screaming about technological mass unemployment since the 1800s.

Universal basic income is not incompatible with Libertarian thinking.

Have you ever even read Marx oh self proclaimed fixer of Capitalism

Attached: 8d227a8d6dc6b7613b31f1ce5361e593482e7b901047149461afae739255f01c-leftypol.jpg (2032x2549, 431K)

Funny thing is the soviet union was far less stable than any country occupied by the US.

The USSR wasn't even Socialism but, have you ever heard of the 1930's? They weren't hit by the depression at all while the US was in shambles.

Universal basic income is the way.

youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc

Attached: Feat-1.jpg (620x330, 63K)

You're a moron. Nothing comparable to full automation has happened before.

>They weren't hit by the depression at all
Yeah, they were too busy implementing forced collectivization and anti-scientific lysenkoism and starving millions of peasants. :okcool:

I mean yea they totally were, but you were talking about stability so..

>You're a moron. Nothing comparable to

Actively starving millions of people is not my idea of "stability"

Soviet Union abolished their market economy and was thus unaffected by a crisis that only affected market/mixed economies.

It's not exactly a compelling argument for communism when there's other obvious problems that come from a lack of a market economy.

Dude, I already said I don't think the USSR was Socialist and I don't support them, just pointing out your false claim that they were unstable.

I don't agree with this claim and I wasn't the person who made that comment, but the Soviet Union was far from economically stable.

>tens of millions of soviets murdered during peacetime over the course of a decade
>stable

there was funny book about automated society.
"Limes Inferior"
written in communist Poland
>all world under one gov.
>evert manual labour automated
>main character was exploiting system in witch you get a job of you are smart
>if you are dumb you get basic pay
>he helps dumb people get jobs for money
>lives higher-middle class dream
>gets caught, coerced to conspiracy
>see how system is run
>people are regresing intelectually
>this is all part of a plan
>only elites know truth
>aliens are ruling over everything
so, beware

Attached: 1534069103476.webm (640x360, 2.94M)

>careful about automation or aliens will rule over everything

I hope robots taking all the shit jobs means the population worldwide will decline to a more reasonable level desu

I don't understand how people can think robots won't cause mass unemployment. In the 1800's, horses were everywhere. Once we built machines to do their jobs their numbers dwindled and are now a very small fraction of what they were then.

>if everybody are unemployed because the robots, who buy the robotic production?
Maybe all robots should have a factor of collective ownership making everyone a part investor into the robotic production.

but maybe they are already

People don't deserve to get money just for existing

Everyone should be on a minimum wage paid for by the companies that automate.

You're presupposing that "automation" will replace all jobs and that all human jobs will be replaced. This necessitates the invention of general AI.

We will have bigger problems than employment if a general AI comes to fruition.

how? market will adapt. we will have more people on welfare and stupid youtubers

Don't people have an inalienable right to live?

Not in our post Trump society no.

It's not like they're going to fucking die if they don't get universal income mate. The povvos are too stupid to manage their income and will just see it as money for nothing and waste it on Sky TV or some other shit. Very rarely in the first world do you get people who are poor due to bad luck or circumstances out of their control.

top edge bro

it's irrelevant what people deserve, once you reach the point where a majority is unemployed or so badly employed they are starving then you will have your society destroyed if you don't manage to satisfy them, by providing them with a UBI you destroy the narrative of "the rich people keep us down leaving us to starve while they eat caviar"

The more automated things become, the more money goes to the top. Look how much more efficient and productive things have become in the past few decades, without the pay adjusting to represent it.

Complete automation should be the end goal of society.

The only option is to kill all unemployed people

A large majority of the military is proletarian. Do you believe they will follow those orders?

USA education made people think that capitalism = if you work you get money and that comunism is some lovecraftian evil, in reality capitalism means that he who has money has power, comunism means that richness (not money) should be properly distributed.

You might not have a "productive" job because robots took all the hard mind-numbing labor but how about giving people enough money to live comfortable if they spend 4-8 hours a day picking up trash from the street or cleaning literal shit from the asses of elderly citizens? Hell maybe just referee a football game among orphanate children or something.

But yes, is right, you shouldn't get shit just for existing, not only in human society but in every animal society ever everyone has todo their part, is just that people today is too brainwashed and think that anything that can't be sold for shekels is worthless.

If they're laid off without an alternative income source, how will they eat?

Fight robots in an arena, winner gets fed

>it as money for nothing and waste it on Sky TV
So the money will go back to the wealthy
What's the problem?

Taxpayer's money is funding people to be lazy leeches incapable of taking responsibility for their own lives.

>Either that or the working class will just accept being starved to death and the population will be reduced by a couple billion.
this is good.

>things your government could never do

>inequality is bad because I say so!
>this guy not having as much as this guy is inherently EVIL!
>why?
>BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!

Attached: hnng.jpg (211x239, 8K)

Oh boy, what a tricky problem. What other way could we possibly allocate resources than by the method of who has the richer daddy?

It's not like most of current Marxists are obsesses by jobs instead of looking forward to a job-less future.

Didn't Freeman, the jew of all jews mention it as one of the first? In the end it's basic income or guillotines, so not that hard of a choice either way.

Taxpayer would be funding the companies the poorfags use, the same companies taxpayers own. Shit like food stamps is already a net gain for the economy, doing it on a bigger scale is a win-win for everyone.

youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Libertarian proposed implementations of universal basic income usually differ from progressive proposals though, because they usually advocate for gutting of social programs first.

Read Hitler and come back when you actually understand what Marxism is.

Attached: 1530402919166.jpg (621x621, 293K)

Sure but in the end it's probably simpler to find a way that libertarians and progressives would somewhat agree on, compared to convincing hardcore MUH JOBS crowd.

In the big picture view, this would be a good thing because it automates work that would have to be otherwise completed by humans.

Attached: Ahmed Muhammad.jpg (198x144, 9K)

Oh great then the government can even further control what I buy, how much, and when and I have to be accountable for it all.

As opposed to private megacorps who would pay you two literal dust bunnies an hour if they could get away with it, if only it weren't for those darn pesky minimum wage laws mandated by the government.

Now get back to work! No bathroom breaks, prole!

Attached: no-bathroom-breaks.jpg (657x850, 734K)

>Spinning jenny makes everybody unemployed

Attached: Spinning_Jenny_improved_203_Marsden.png (698x541, 182K)

You say that like large megacorps don't have tremendous influence on most governments, especially democratic ones.
They will cooperate in their oppression, not compete.

Health care really is in need of more automation and deskilling though
>if everybody are unemployed because the robots, who buy the robotic production?
If robots can do everything humans can do, why would they still keep humans around?

at that point we could just establish non authoritarian communism.
Nobody needs to work.

it made enough people unemployed that you had people revolting and destroying them

> democratic
no such thing exists.
representative republic != democracy

I very much doubt we're going to see full automation of manual labor before 2030. Stuff that require lots of dexterity is impossible to automate at efficient rates at the moment.

I'd rather have something derived from negative tax income.