10 ms·
If you are free from physical and mental labor, you are in fact, not supplying labor, and are therefore surplus to requirements.
by FuckButtons 29d ago
If you are free from physical and mental labor, you are in fact, not supplying labor, and are therefore surplus to requirements.
- auggierose 29d agoWhose requirements?
- esafak 29d agoThe employer's, whose salary affords your subsistence.
- visarga 28d agoIf AI is so great it can do your job it is good enough to provide for your needs directly by automation. Just buy a robot and a plot of land and you don't have to worry about jobs.
- esafak 28d agoRobots can't do that yet, and even then you still need to pay for food, healthcare, land (taxes), transportation, etc.
- auggierose 28d agoI don't think anyone wants to be employed. They want the money that comes with employment. If you can make get money without employment, like rich kids, for example, I think most people would prefer that.
- deleted 28d ago[deleted]
- feoren 28d agoAnd you think that once the poor are no longer needed by the rich, the rich will decide to just give them money anyway? We already have dedicated campaigns to make sure people die sick and homeless on the streets when they become obsolete. You think that is not going to get much, much worse?
- auggierose 27d agoI think everyone should become rich. That is the goal of AI, isn't it?
- SJMG 27d agoSo who gets to live in Montecito?
- auggierose 26d agoI don't care about Montecito. Harry and Meghan apparently neither. Being rich doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. But it means you can choose not to do what you don't want.
- SJMG 23d agoLike not-not live in Montecito? Not everyone can be rich by your definition.
- auggierose 22d agoLet me be just for a second here be an intuitionist: not (not M) does not imply M. Everyone can be rich. But not everyone can be Montecito-rich.
- a2ff6eeb0 27d agoYeah, better not be poor when the AI comes.