This seems to be the Luddite argument that people have been making for a long time about new technology, but new jobs appear to replace those lost, and so the claimed criticism never happens. And are you seriously saying that it would be better if we didn't strive to do that? It'd be better if we didn't have robots and computers and factories replacing all that human labour?

.

Could you please list all these "new jobs" that can sustain over 7,400,000,000 ( 7.4 billion ) humans? ( roughly 5,000,000,000 [ 5 billion ] workers )

Last year 131,000,000 ( 131 million ) new humans were made.

It seems like thousands of "old jobs" are being replaced with a handful of new jobs ... AKA "diminishing labor returns" .

I don't need to list every single job, I simply note that they already exist in today's world, jobs weren't swept away by machines from the Industrial revolution.

In the meantime, cost-of-living is going through the roof. Apparently "better living conditions" is being homeless ?

No one is claiming that there aren't issues of poverty or inequality today.

Are you seriously suggesting that life was better for most people in developed countries before say the 20th Century? If not, why is your argument today different from the Luddites'?

Another problem with your argument is that striving for scientific and technological advancement, or greater efficiency, is hardly specific to capitalism - though if it excels at promoting it, that would be a good point imo.

Tangentially related: Have you ever thought that jobs like salesmen, or PR, or people that close "business deals", doing "mergers and acquisitions" are really bullshit jobs? Okay okay, this is probably not a novel thought at all, but here goes my rant anyway :)

Like, those that are responsible to close business deals, what are they doing exactly? What are they doing for the car industry, for instance? Making sure company A gets the deal, instead of company B? Besides the owners of company A, who gives a shit where the profits actually go? People just need cars(or transportation, in general) to get to their jobs, or to go see their loved ones, or go on vacation, or just drive around for fun listening to their favourite jams. What service does the person that ensures company A and not company B reaps the benefits actually performs to society? Instead of a pooling of efforts in order to produce the goods that people need in order to survive and enjoy their lives as much as possible, you get the workforce divided in privately-owned companies that put signficant effort into competing about who gets the biggest slice of the pie, something completely irrelevant to the needs of the vast majority of people

Imagine this in the context of a single company instead of the society as a whole: Instead of getting 10 programmers to pool their efforts and make you a game engine(which is the thing you need), you have 5 in-company competing teams of 2 programmers each trying to write their own engine independently, plus each team hires an extra PR/sales person that will pitch the team's engine to the chief engineer, which will then choose which engine the company will use. Does that sound like an efficient way to get to the actual goal, which is to produce a good game engine that will enable the creation of a game that people will enjoy? No? Why not man, I mean competition drives innovation, right?

Or, for examples, advertiser? What is *exactly* their function, besides making sure that those that already have the most capital are able to spend a good portion of it in marketing and thus accumulate even more of it? As I see it, the sole function of advertisers is to make rich people richer, and that's that. Now, don't get me wrong, for my own game I will use some meager advertisement, but that's only because I have no other choice. In a hypothetical world where paid ads didn't exist, the success of a product would have to rely on word on mouth, which in the internet age is incredibly easy to spread too. So, really, a much better situation.

I feel this is the essential difference between socialism and capitalism: Socialism produces things so people can use them to cover their needs. Capitalism produces things first and foremost so those that own the means of production can make a profit, and pay their employees enough so they can buy the things they produce.

Maybe arguing that competition does drive innovation forward has some merit, but I think there's an equally strong argument to be made about cooperation, especially when under the current system countless work hours and creative power are lost by trying to protect "trade secrets", duplication of effort between companies that essentially produce the same stuff, navigate the bullshit corporate environment and the patent minefield, etc etc.

If we didn't have companies competing against each other constantly it would stifle not encourage innovation, we'd have a monopoly on each industry much like Microsoft and Intel almost had in the first half of the 1990's.

The bullshit jobs you mention helps to maintain an environment where no one company can get an unfair monopoly by constantly trying to compete, close that deal and make that sale.

As I said, the argument about competition helping innovation isn't without merit, but one can also make an argument about cooperation and pooling of resources. Private enterprises racing each other towards consumers' wallets isn't the only way to encourage innovation. It's just the one we have now, and sometimes it's hard to imagine a radically different paradigm. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. At least that's my view.

Humanity is mad. It believes in survival at all costs.

Every 'Idealism' attempts to achieve, it seems, the following: "Highest quality of life for the maximum number of people without compromising individual sovereignty." And yet, none are ever quite able to maintain a modicum of success for very long. Why is that?

Personally, I think people have a fetish for breeding humans.

Two compatible life producing members of a species that prides itself on the ability of being conscientious of the past, present and future is responsible for guaranteeing the quality of life, for each life they intend to bring into this world. Instinctually parents know this, but is it evident intellectually?

If on average, couples had;

• 3 children or more, the total population would increase.
• 2 children, the total population would stabilize, while having only
• 1 child would slowly lower the total population (after about the 4th generation, with current life expectances).

It is ridiculous to presume that future generations would all "want" to live in crowded cities or high-rises. The easiest way for would-be parents to determine whether to have 1, 2, 3 or more children is to find out what each child would inherit from the great-grand-parents, as it is seldom that any great-grand-parents haven't "move-on" before the 4th generation has reached adult age. Any person who has ever dreamed of owning a big home with plenty of land and resources shouldn't want anything less for their own children.

Young adults who inherit nothing or next to nothing, will have the delusion of "someday making it" to comfort them, along with a lifetime subscription to placating "motivational/self-help/new-age/religious" material, plus an endless supply of distractions to consume their attention. [OoooooOoooOOh *snap*]

- - -

"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things." -- Milton Friedman

Worried about an increase in unemployment?

How about employing more people by reducing everybody else's hours?

People wouldn't mind working less hours at their job, right?

Oh, but of course, that would mean having less money.

Why should that be a problem?

Because "everything" would still be expensive.

Why should things remain expensive?

Because of the concept of profit.

And why do we "need" profit?"

We don't!

Banks say we do.

The truth is, you live under a bank-controlled-capitalism.

You have a free-market, but nobody said anything about it being a "fair"-market. [Bwahahahahaha!]

It's not that capitalism won't last, it's that people will eventually become disillusioned about debt to (and inflation from) the banks.

Right now, Banks treat us like children, because, at the moment, without them, we would be lost. "We" haven't learned to setup our own fair system of credit, and pass the knowledge onto generation to generation to prevent a relapse of corruption. So the metaphorical bonds of debt keep tightening. When enough of society can no longer bear it, then it will seek to change itself.

Why should things remain expensive? Because of the concept of profit. And why do we "need" profit?" We don't! Banks say we do.

How can you work without a profit? You would literaly work for free, how would you survive even if you were the one who'd be willing to do it? If you sell something for sole expenses price, you are living on air then? Working takes your time, you are unable to earn money elsehow etc.

So saying profit is a ridiculous aspect makes me wonder what you have ment.

I borrow money to my friends without interest though, it is true.

How can you work without a profit? You would literaly work for free, how would you survive even if you were the one who'd be willing to do it?

That issue was addressed long, long ago by the very first communist:

Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they?

(mind you, they nailed the guy to a wooden beam for these ideas)

Creative jobs and research jobs have increased

The term "starving artist" has real meaning behind it.
Do you seriously believe most folks can make a living with "art" ?!
(( In the US, roughly 98% of art students are unable to find art related jobs ))

The "starving artist" has been a thing longer than the US has been a country, yet the sky still hasn't fallen. Trying to mutate the labor market to cater to want people *want to do* rather than whatever everyone else *needs* is insane.

Creative jobs are more than just art students. They're chefs, writers, and unsurprisingly, pretty much every type of game developer. The point is that despite the doom and gloom that has overshadowed hundreds of years of technological history, there are still jobs available. They're just *different* jobs, and that's totally okay.

You know, this indeed reminds of the luddite argument, which was proven wrong : We just invented new jobs that machines couldn't do.

But the question is, can this go on forever? If and when machines actually reach human intelligence, then by definition there won't be any "new" jobs that humans can do but machine can't, no?

(mind you, they nailed the guy to a wooden beam for these ideas)

They did that with a lot of madmen, to be fair.

But the question is, can this go on forever? If and when machines actually reach human intelligence, then by definition there won't be any "new" jobs that humans can do but machine can't, no?

Certainly possible within a few centuries. At some point working to survive will be a thing of the past, whether it's 200 years or 2000 years.

How can you work without a profit? You would literaly work for free, how would you survive even if you were the one who'd be willing to do it?

That issue was addressed long, long ago by the very first communist:

Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they?

(mind you, they nailed the guy to a wooden beam for these ideas)

Was that really communist or socialist?

They did that with a lot of madmen, to be fair.

It's madness to say that we have enough resources to adequately support ourselves? Why is it always called madness when one bucks against the status quo?