I agree, production isn't the issue. The value of the production relative to the value of the compensation is. I'm not disagreeing with any of you guys about the changes that have occurred over time in production or efficiency. Production or efficiency aren't the important metrics here. Did the employee generate more dollars for the business in one hour than the business had to spend to get the employee to be there? If yes, job exists. If no, job does not exist.
What's the alternative?Automation should be making everyone's lives better. The reason why it's not is because we're directly allowing for individual private ownership of automated processes and AIs and allowing owners to trade out human labor for machine labor while pocketing the savings. We don't actually have to do that.
That's a different direction than where I was taking the conversation. My point here was about one guy working one hour and how many dollars he has to bring in compared to how many dollars his employer has to pay out.And don't get all Randian by suggesting that captains of industry would just stop making the world a better place if we taxed them more or did not allow them exclusive rights to automated processes. The US government is by far the largest funder of research and development, including AI. These advancements exist in large part because the government throws a ton of money at scientists in a way that a corporation really can't.
Side note, thanks to you and everyone else for the fun conversation.