Nobody works for the sake of work -- people strive to create value, which helps pay our salaries and feed our families.
I'd love to work on my little projects all day long, but nobody's going to pay me for that - at least not enough and not long enough to earn a living from it.
I don't think people 'strive to create value' at all - we just go to work to get paid, and while we're at work we basically do what we're told. If we're told "strive to create value", then we'll work like normal and call it "striving to create value". If the boss says "ensure not one of these shell casings can be used to make a bomb, but make sure we make enough of them to fulfil our orders" (a la Schindler), then we'll do that, and we'll still call it 'striving to create value' when the customers come arou
I think we do strive to create value. As you point out, even when you aren't working you're doing chores to create value for your own life. If we plunked you down somewhere with absolutely nothing, you'd be striving to create some clothing, shelter, and food. All of those things are quite valuable to you. In the past, you might have had to do all of those things on your own and either learn yourself or perhaps have been taught how to do so by your tribe.
However, today if you want some clothing, a house,
It is not impossible, it is impossible for many. The world only needs soo many dead house-pet taxidermists. Yes the world will adjust. Society dosen't have a choice. But these periods of adjustment are historically rife with massive swings in wealth disparity, human suffering, and civil war. Being flippant to the chances that, we could all be eating out of dumpsters in 5 years or killing each-other in a massive rich/vs poor conflict, isn't proportional promotional to the urgency the issue deserves.
What folks are saying is that it will cause some serious social upheaval as people adjust and some folks won't be to adjust - they'll be permanently booted out of the workforce; like what happened with the weavers during the English Industrial Revolution*.
Nobody is "permanently booted out of the workforce". Some categories of jobs disappear but that's not a bad thing. Those displaced have to go find something else economically valuable to do. We know this happened. It wasn't comfortable in the short term for some but there was no class of people unable to find work for the rest of their lives.
*When the weavers were displaced, they did not become machine operators they were left out to starve or demoted to unskilled labor. One machine replaced about 27 weavers and one person operated at least 3 machines. Automation has always been a net job destroyer.
If automation was a net job destroyer then society would immediately collapse. Your argument makes no sense. Automation is a net job creator. Automation and it's
I'd love to work on my little projects all day long, but nobody's going to pay me for that - at least not enough and not long enough to earn a living from it.
I don't think people 'strive to create value' at all - we just go to work to get paid, and while we're at work we basically do what we're told. If we're told "strive to create value", then we'll work like normal and call it "striving to create value". If the boss says "ensure not one of these shell casings can be used to make a bomb, but make sure we make enough of them to fulfil our orders" (a la Schindler), then we'll do that, and we'll still call it 'striving to create value' when the customers come arou
However, today if you want some clothing, a house,
What folks are saying is that it will cause some serious social upheaval as people adjust and some folks won't be to adjust - they'll be permanently booted out of the workforce; like what happened with the weavers during the English Industrial Revolution*.
Nobody is "permanently booted out of the workforce". Some categories of jobs disappear but that's not a bad thing. Those displaced have to go find something else economically valuable to do. We know this happened. It wasn't comfortable in the short term for some but there was no class of people unable to find work for the rest of their lives.
*When the weavers were displaced, they did not become machine operators they were left out to starve or demoted to unskilled labor. One machine replaced about 27 weavers and one person operated at least 3 machines. Automation has always been a net job destroyer.
If automation was a net job destroyer then society would immediately collapse. Your argument makes no sense. Automation is a net job creator. Automation and it's