Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I am not advocating stopping the rise of automation but pointing out that the current system will likely cause the benefits of that automation to be largely won by the people who get their first by having the wealth to do so.
The industrial revolution was eventually met with a response in the form of the labor movement and more rights for workers. There is nothing wrong with a governmental and/or societal response to changes in work and wealth creation. The latest challenge we face is the march of automation and how that will radically change our society. I think this particular revolution is different as well because of the speed at which it'll happen.
How do we handle it? Where will the good new jobs come from? Even the jobs made by deliveroo - with low wages and few employment rights - are fleeting until that can be automated. Universal Income, 4 day weeks are at least examples of people thinking about these things rather than dismissing them as if nothing ever changes or the market is a uncontrollable force that never needed to be challenged by government.
|
The problem you highlight is a good one. The current light touch approach favoured by free market Governments is to observe and not challenge until/unless the change starts to impinge on legal constructs. All the while if the consumer, how you ever define this entity, is content with lower prices, more product choice, more product features, etc. then the Laissez-faire remains.
The issue that is ignored is that this policy has future consequences. These invariably turn out to be negative. Online shopping: convenient and cheaper than visiting the High Street. We all do it and are now reaping the "rewards". Town centres turning into bizarre versions of their former community-centric selves. Do we all miss the corner shop, the sub post office, the local baker, etc. Of course but did we do anything to change their destiny, absolutely not.
The free market must have constraints: these need to be for societal as much as economic reasons. Without boundaries, change will happen .. unchecked. Automation will be a runaway train that future Governments will be playing catch up to. We need impact assessments before these changes get momentum.
---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Going from a council house to building such an empire is an example of the much vaunted social mobility. Although the grammar school system almost certainly played a part.
Ultimately those businesses have to be owned by somebody, whether an individual or another business. That ownership can be based anywhere in the world.
|
You fail to grasp the construct here: social mobility does not equate to immoral wealth. There need to be mechanisms in place to encourage market-driven innovations that benefit society as a whole and penalise the acquisition of disproportionate personal or corporate wealth.