cub says

you don't consider the first point: if people can't afford your product, how are you going to make money? automation naturally drives down prices not only because production becomes cheaper but also because if money becomes a problem for the unemployed then you *have* to lower costs to profit

theoretically, it fights inflation because less money becomes more valuable as opposed to more money becoming less valuable, which likewise reduces poverty by lowering the poverty line but that's more complicated

Ok, I get what you're somewhat saying. Here's the reason: price is inversely proportional to the quantity demanded. As prices rise with no shift in productivity, a bubble will continue to form. Inflation would increase until the bubble crashes. If the crashed market is detrimental enough on a macroeconomic scale, then our economy would take a hit as aggregate supply decreases, taking away jobs and requiring government action. You are saying automation will solve this.

Automation has its pros and cons, some of which I had said above. The pros and cons weigh in such that those with more liberal views see more cons than pros whereas those with more conservative views see more pros than cons. We can't predict the economy; otherwise, we would be perfect. Combined, the differences in predictions and priorities of the party constructs their view on automation public policy and whether it is valuable at the current state, and whether it should be implemented.

We're still arguing about this? I thought my explanation pretty much summed it up.

Ben says

its bad if robots take jobs from people and then people have no money and then live in poverty and no one does anything and rich people get richer

Birth rates would go down an excruciating amount. The biggest problem is once half the jobs are taken and the other half aren't, the people who had that half are sh*t outta luck, but once all necessities can be reproduced to support a certain amount of people money literally loses it's worth

People always say buy gold in case the government crashes but soon it will be buy gold because money will have no value anymore due to all necessities being free.

Birth rates go down, necessities go up, money loses worth, the only enemy humans have left is boredom.

There are no studies that favor one position over the opposite.

What we do know, is that traditional work that's executed in one sector will be replaced, as society is evolving towards new types of jobs.

its good if robots do everything for us and no one has to work and everyone gets things for free and society is great


its bad if robots take jobs from people and then people have no money and then live in poverty and no one does anything and rich people get richer

Jimbei says

maybe there's a vocal minority out there who wants things to stay the way that they are.

you're thinking of the unions :3

I don't know jackshit about economics but as far as I'm concerned automation is a net good. it's not something we should fight.

that said, I don't think it's wrong to worry about some of the negative short-term consequences. I don't think automation will ever get to a point where the majority of people are out of work, but robots definitely can temporarily displace a decent share of the workforce e.g. those who worked in manufacturing. we should do whatever we need to do to make sure those who are displaced are taken care of.

I've also heard that automation might exacerbate income inequality but I don't know/care about that as much. As long as our quality of life improves I'm good. :33

please only reference movies i've watched

and liberals apparently hate automation as of donald trump's labor secretary pick

also I thought my fellow liberals were the ones who wanted robots around

maybe there's a vocal minority out there who wants things to stay the way that they are.

People are just scared that automation will give us a paradise like Wall-E. None of us have to do any work so we become Jamal's worst nightmare, and while it was kind of a joke at the time(people focus on the more environmental aspects in that movie), it's pretty obvious that if we ever reach a day where necessities can be made for free for everyone then we will start to decline as a workforce

(Wall-E is somewhat of a rational fear but it's not like there can be a ton to do to stop that)

Will automation give us a 3 day work week?

you don't consider the first point: if people can't afford your product, how are you going to make money? automation naturally drives down prices not only because production becomes cheaper but also because if money becomes a problem for the unemployed then you *have* to lower costs to profit

theoretically, it fights inflation because less money becomes more valuable as opposed to more money becoming less valuable, which likewise reduces poverty by lowering the poverty line but that's more complicated

Is this a jojoke?

Liberals tend to hate automation because they are worried about what would happen to the working class who are increasingly become unemployed and have little skills outside of the job replaced by automation. Liberals are concerned on the macroeconomic consequences such as increasing unemployment rates, inflation, and poverty. The Phillips Curve reflects this well.

Conservatives, on the other, tend to focus on the microeconomic aspect, particularly with ameliorating business and lowering taxes. It doesn't concern businesses and many Americans too much as long as prices and taxes are going down from a shift in supply due to increased productivity.

Overall, I agree with you on your last point that we should keep automation to shift closer to society's goal toward achieving a utopia; however, as reasons I have discussed above, people are specialized and unskilled beyond their own job, so it can be a very difficult task getting them a new job out of, say, the industry. I believe that, if we could decrease the American population, then we could - in the long term - ameliorate our economy and have less reliance on labor-intensive jobs.