Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ga-co t1_ivfp03r wrote

Revenue that will be taxed in some way that benefits society as a whole and doesn’t just pad the pockets of the ultra wealthy and replace the need for workers? Right? RIGHT???

81

JefferyTheQuaxly t1_ivggci5 wrote

It is in the interest of the rich to keep regular people maybe not employed but at least occupied/busy/happy. When the working class has a lot of free time and is upset at the system that’s when revolutions happen. And even if the rich have more resources, it’s a lose/lose situation when 90% of the population is rebelling against the top 5-10%. People need to be occupied with work or hobbies or something to keep them from realizing how unfairly their situation truly is.

13

fattony182 t1_ivgxa1j wrote

Completely agree. But the first jobs to go (and maybe only for a considerable amount of time) to these humanoid robots will be the lowest paid and easiest to replace of course. What if this is 10,20 or 30% of the population out of work?

Then it’s the 70-90~% still employed and maybe with higher wages than currently, vs the losers of this robot replacement. Will that be enough pressure to make meaningful change? That’s my concern, and partial prediction.

5

ronyclayaa t1_ivi1ip6 wrote

No, just revenue that can be taxed in a way that benefits politicians pockets.

1

crunchycrispy t1_ivkwfch wrote

i am basically hopeless at this point for US society, but it’s hard not to imagine that even some ardent conservatives will have a big wake up call to the necessity of wealth redistribution at the point when humanoids do all the work.

1