that is the thing though, why should we care about human labor having a leverage point? If all labor was automated, it would be a great net positive for humankind as a whole AS LONG AS it is not a requirement to be a laborer to receive a livable wage.
The problem is that as time goes on it seems less and less labor is available that can be done by the majority of the population, while the requirement to labor in order to earn a wage is not changing.
There is an infinite amount of work that can be done by humans that cannot be done by machine, but that kind of work usually does not command livable wages: learning to play a musical instrument, and becoming moderately competent at it, learning to build furniture with hand tools, and becoming moderately skilled at it, learning to be a good spouse, and being there when your partner needs your help.
It is easy to see how a large amount of occupations still available today can be automated, it is harder to see how the large number of people displaced by this automation will be able to manage.
Once automobiles became widespread, were the horses able to "retrain" into "the new jobs that became available"? Improving the cart is not the same as making the horse replaceable.
"If all labor was automated, it would be a great net positive for humankind as a whole AS LONG AS it is not a requirement to be a laborer to receive a livable wage."
This is where I am pessimistic. The political will is not there, not too mention the glacier speeds at which governments move in comparison to technological innovation.
Comments
that is the thing though, why should we care about human labor having a leverage point? If all labor was automated, it would be a great net positive for humankind as a whole AS LONG AS it is not a requirement to be a laborer to receive a livable wage.
The problem is that as time goes on it seems less and less labor is available that can be done by the majority of the population, while the requirement to labor in order to earn a wage is not changing.
There is an infinite amount of work that can be done by humans that cannot be done by machine, but that kind of work usually does not command livable wages: learning to play a musical instrument, and becoming moderately competent at it, learning to build furniture with hand tools, and becoming moderately skilled at it, learning to be a good spouse, and being there when your partner needs your help.
It is easy to see how a large amount of occupations still available today can be automated, it is harder to see how the large number of people displaced by this automation will be able to manage.
Once automobiles became widespread, were the horses able to "retrain" into "the new jobs that became available"? Improving the cart is not the same as making the horse replaceable.
"If all labor was automated, it would be a great net positive for humankind as a whole AS LONG AS it is not a requirement to be a laborer to receive a livable wage."
This is where I am pessimistic. The political will is not there, not too mention the glacier speeds at which governments move in comparison to technological innovation.