Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ASuarezMascareno t1_j6ctg5a wrote

Reply to comment by Stealthychicken85 in AI will not replace software developers, It will just drastically reduce the number of them. by masterile

>It sucks but the more advanced we get the more people will lose their jobs and the rich get richer. Nothing will change this

That's an effect of the economic system, not something inherent to technology. Collective ownership of the means of production would make things different.

1

Stealthychicken85 t1_j6cu5i2 wrote

It's a literal byproduct of technology increasing productivity

2

ASuarezMascareno t1_j6cxuct wrote

It is only a byproduct of that in our current economic and political framework. An increase in productivity does not need to mean increase in profit for the few at the expense of the many.

How to use a technological increase in productivity is an economic an policial issue, not a technological one.

The easiest example of a different outcome would be sharing the profits of the increase in productivity by reducing working hours, while keeping the same amount of jobs and keeping wages. This way everyone wins. Rejecting these kinds of solutions is not about technology. Deciding that the only option is for a very small group to win all they can win at the expense of everyone else is a political decision.

7

Stealthychicken85 t1_j6do4xh wrote

>Deciding that the only option is for a very small group to win all they can win at the expense of everyone else is a political decision.

politics has nothing to do with these decisions, its just greed

2

Ameren t1_j6ft8d3 wrote

>politics has nothing to do with these decisions, its just greed

Deciding how society should be structured, how resources should be allocated, and what rights people have and the circumstances under which they have them (in this case property rights) is the whole purpose of politics as I understand it.

As an example, let's look at a classic American company like IBM. IBM employs around 281,000 people and has numerous institutional shareholders. Figuring out who owns what, what rights as stakeholders those 281,000 employees have, the processes by which decisions are made, etc. requires an enormous amount of legal machinery — without which the company simply could not exist. The framework in which IBM operates is set down in laws, the laws are put in place by elected officials, and those officials are elected by voters.

The same holds true for abuse of power by corporate elite. Corrupt, greedy behavior is often completely legal; they are simply using the powers granted to them under the law. Thus, the limits on that power are ultimately determined by voters (at least in theory). In a very literal sense u/ASuarezMascareno is right: greed is a political decision. You can't be greedy without the power to take what you want, and for corporations that power ultimately stems from the social contract.

2

Rofel_Wodring t1_j6hiv51 wrote

>politics has nothing to do with these decisions, its just greed

Enlightenment liberalism rots the brain. No root causes, no systemics, just vibes and presenting problems. What a childish ideology.

0

sysnickm t1_j6gui0r wrote

Except the consumer, the consumer does not win when we limit progress because new efficiencies mean we work less.

2

ASuarezMascareno t1_j6hh1j5 wrote

The product can also be cheaper at the same time. The main obstacle to make it cheaper are not working conditions but the demand for exaggerated corporate gains.

Also, the consumers are the workers. They are not a separate group.

2