Comment Re:Congratulations (Score 1) 990
There is certainly fundamentally wrong with the current economic framework where the mass availability of cheap and efficient 'slaves' that (hopefully) won't rebel anytime soon has created unemployment and decreased the standard of living.
Lack of jobs should be a good thing; it means we don't need to work. It shouldn't mean that relatively few hoard the machines and the wealth. Certainly this system cannot hold forever. Either unemployment will force a popular revolution or it will force an economic one. The rich are only rich if there is enough wealth among the others to buy the products and services.
I would argue this is where socialism shines. We have so much wealth and productivity in society that we can easily afford to provide a reasonable standard of living to those who don't want to, or can't, work. A job should provide a better standard of living to give incentive to work and innovate but by no means should everyone have to work 40-hours weeks in order to live comfortably.
Where would the money come from? By taxing this corporations of course. If the overall economic productivity has gone up while jobs have gone down that means the extra wealth resides in these more efficient corporations - so they can afford to have it redistributed as it was when they were less efficient. The argument against heavily taxing corporations is that that keeps them from providing as many jobs, but clearly the corporations would rather spend the extra money on efficient machinery than on humans. Why do we want those jobs in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to use that extra wealth/productivity for the benefit of society instead of those at the top of the corporation?
Lack of jobs should be a good thing; it means we don't need to work. It shouldn't mean that relatively few hoard the machines and the wealth. Certainly this system cannot hold forever. Either unemployment will force a popular revolution or it will force an economic one. The rich are only rich if there is enough wealth among the others to buy the products and services.
I would argue this is where socialism shines. We have so much wealth and productivity in society that we can easily afford to provide a reasonable standard of living to those who don't want to, or can't, work. A job should provide a better standard of living to give incentive to work and innovate but by no means should everyone have to work 40-hours weeks in order to live comfortably.
Where would the money come from? By taxing this corporations of course. If the overall economic productivity has gone up while jobs have gone down that means the extra wealth resides in these more efficient corporations - so they can afford to have it redistributed as it was when they were less efficient. The argument against heavily taxing corporations is that that keeps them from providing as many jobs, but clearly the corporations would rather spend the extra money on efficient machinery than on humans. Why do we want those jobs in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to use that extra wealth/productivity for the benefit of society instead of those at the top of the corporation?
