Although each of the individual economic elements of society is motivated to act to improve its individual benefits the total activity should effect the sustenance and improvement of society as a whole in order that society should remain viable and prosper. If any element of society in its confrontational activity improves its capability to the point of degrading any of the other elements then society has a good possibility to self destruct.
The original interactions of workers and management were such as to provide benefits to both elements and the conflicts between the two provided the means for readjusting their relationship to mutual benefit. And the wealth created by this relationship was utilized by society in general to improve the infrastructure of society to optimize society’s potential. Society must make provision for management to maintain and grow and for individual citizens to remain healthy and capable throughout their entire lives.
Originally the number of active workers that were required to provide a portion of their earned wealth to provide for those workers who could no longer contribute to society due to physical incapability or old age was balanced. But as technology was improved with automation and extending each worker’s capabilities, the number of workers required to sustain society has steadily decreased so that the individual contributions of workers to society has decreased and is increasing to decrease in relation to the funds required to sustain citizens no longer capable of working or who are no longer deemed necessary by management creating a social crisis.
It might be worthwhile with the advent of future technology and more capable robots that the technology be considered as providing virtual workers who were responsible to society in general for contributing, as are real workers, to the sustenance of those citizens no longer required to or capable of contributing wealth to society.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
So, in a nutshell, you say robots should pay taxes. . .
Slightly out of the nutshell what I am saying is that we live in an interdependent society that benefits from technical improvements conceived and offered out of the social complex. Up to this point management has utilized this upgrade system to benefit itself with little or no repayment to the system that benefits it. It seems only fair that society in general should gain from technology beyond enriching only one faction.In the middle of the last century it was envisioned that technology would increase productivity to the extent that work hours could decrease with no loss of productivity or general wealth. Current activity has resulted in cutting large numbers out of the work force to the degradation of economic life of a large portion of citizens who will not simply vanish. Somehow they must be sustained by society unless you prefer some form of mass execution for those not privileged to participate in technological accomplishment.
So what your saying is that advancement in technology is taking away jobs, well rather displacing them to the person(s) creating the technology. For example the latest one I heard was that the latest mega super corp shopping mall had installed these new systems where you could pay for your idem without assistance of personnel, you could scan it in, use your card and it would print a receipt. it would then demagnetize the bar code tag thing and away you go with out of the store without the blinky lights going off when you leave the store. Now computers are doing the job of what used to be a person. but where did the job go to. Well it went to the person who made the computer, the person who assembled the parts of the physical device, the person who comes and fixes it when it doesn't work, the person who replaces the receipt paper.
OK so that's one example, I'm sure there are thousands more. but what is the ratio to a transaction like that 1 eight hour job to one machine job to many maintenance and creation jobs, it might take someone 120hours to make up a system that can do such a job, and maybe 1hour a week for maintenance of the machine. I kind of view it like passive income, you do all the work ahead of time so you just have to maintain the things that you can't completely automate. then as time goes one the work you have done ahead of time pays off and your left with less things to do so you can concentrate your efforts of other things. For example the super mega corp shopping mall could then take the money that they saved on cashiers and hire more customer support for hands on things your personal shopping assistant. whatever it may be. A lot of people are really afraid of Computers replacing the human jobs that we have. I don't understand it. why or better yet why not ?
I am all for computers replacing people in dull jobs. But the number and quality and remuneration of the jobs available to the skilled help replaced is usually of a lower standard and in the long run this is very bad for consumers who must pay for the services. Theoretically services should be getting better. They are getting worse and they are getting more expensive and much of the creative work is going to other countries. Anyone who has had to punch a series of numbers when contacting a firm or an institution for information is well aware of the decline of service quality.