• humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      With MechaHitler controlled robots, you will compete with all of the other sharecroppers to pay your robot rental fess with your mechahitler minion’s work’s revenue. If you get rich from this scheme, Musk will increase supply of robots so that more competition to your income stops you from being rich.

  • realitista@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    They will push the hard problems they create off to an unfunded government as usual. The only way I can see this working is by nationalizing the AI companies. The billionaires will balk, but millions of people with pitchforks can be a great motivator. The main issue will be if we allow these people to build robot armies, in which case this whole transformation becomes a lot harder.

    • Tonava@sopuli.xyz
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The thing is, these people can’t do anything by themselves, and AI won’t unclog their toilets. Making things hard enough for the common folk will bite your ass eventually - they need people to keep their cozy lives running, while pretending they don’t and can replace everyone. Good luck with getting that vibe-coded toilet unplugger working

  • etherphon@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    No one, hopefully, we’ve been buying far too much useless plastic garbage, replacing our electronics and appliances far more often than should be necessary, etc. etc. The whole economy is a sham.

  • knotRyder@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    As long as corporations make products they create value where shareholders make money to buy products

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That’s not how things work. If people have to work to buy things, then people not being able to work can’t buy things and the share value drops to $0.

      The only way this works is with UBI

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Tell it to companies “selling” ram and drives to data centres that never get built.

        Make up sales, stonks go up.

        • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          And where do those data centers get their money? Without end customers to sell to, there is no markets. If all jobs are taken by robots, then people will not have work and will not get paychecks to buy stuff. Basically the only option is true socialism and everyone just gets their government checks. But I also don’t really see that happening

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            You’re still stuck on the actual physicality of normal trade.

            These fuckers are making shit up and selling moon farts

            • village604@adultswim.fan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              They’re not making shit up. Purchasing future production is a very common thing. Shit, tons of Etsy shops operate like that.

              Money is a representation of the value of human labor. It’s how people can trade their work for the products of other people’s work without having to directly trade specific items.

              The ultra wealthy see money as a vehicle for power over the masses, because people need to work to live. They’re not hoarding that much wealth just to be able to buy expensive stuff.

              If all human labor is replaced with robots, then they lose all of that power. If human labor holds no value, then neither does money.

  • Auli@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Companies they already have most of the wealth and one reason stocks don’t follow reality anymore. As long as they are willing to pass money around price goes up.

  • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s just gonna be the same 8 companies passing money between each other. Kinda like the Nvidia/openAI circle jerk. Us peasants will live in company towns, and be paid in company dollars that we can spend to buy food and water, from the company. Don’t worry, they’ll deduct rent straight from our checks.

    • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve always been kind of a Balam simp. They at least pretend to be upfront and halfway honorable. Arquebus was always too pretentious. Honestly I’d probably end up in the Dosers anyways. Drugs seems like a reasonable reaction to galaxy spanning corporate overlords.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not that hard

    Wealth caps. Worldwide. Start at something reasonable, say 10 million

    Anything over that goes 100% tot axes. Nobody has a “right” to more than that, nobody needs more than that. No, you don’t NEED three Lamborghini’s, you don’t need 20 houses.

    Keep everything else the same, just a single rule to make a huge difference

    Governments now will have enough income to fund a huge social net with free education, free healthcare, universal income so that people can spend money to keep the economy running

    People now can choose to do some of the little work left.

    On a side note: fuck these AI clowns for focussing on AI on exactly those tasks that make life worth living instead of focussing on the mundane shit tasks that nobody wants to do. Garbage collection still requires humans yet these shit stains claim that art andusic is now covered. Yay! Now we have shitty AI art and shitty jobs!

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      you don’t even need that. If you have more brackets and keep going up in percentages and tax every type of income including investments in progressive way then you will get to a point where its just to hard to make more than say 10 million. We basically had this. When we had tax brackets that went up to 95% and only 40% for investment and that limited wealth quite a bit. Rates need to be the same regardless of source be it inheritance, lottery winnings, wages, or investments. Heck im fine with not paying taxes on things if you legally lock it up so it can’t be sold. still have to pay any income it creates year to year but can’t sell it or transfer it in any way. combine this with a 1% tax on all buying and selling which would be a massive reduction for most purchases but would be a vast increase for stock and bond trading. would completely clear out short term trading.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The point of the cap is more to really have it clear that NOBODY has the right to hoard wealth. Everybody can be free to live the way they want to, everybody can live perfectly comfortable, and the psycho types amongst us that need to have that little bit more than the rest are perfectly fine being a little richer than the rest while spending their lives on work, if they like that… But nobody is allowed to be crazy rich anymore. If you don’t cap it, ways will be found around it, they will add a few laws, repeal a few others, and we’re back to today again.

        This is just a single hard stop, no ways around it, you have a hard physical limit, and anyone even remotely suggesting we can drop this rule is known for being a hoarding pyschopath immediately.

        • HubertManne@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I sorta get you but I do think a soft cap is the way to go. those pyschopaths will literally just go underground. hiding wealth, capping all family and such. I mean they do this anyway basically but with a soft cap it just makes it harder for them to decide which is worse. working more or finding a better system to get more or working more or finding a better way to circumvent the system.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Good luck going underground.

            How are you going to drive your third lambourghini around without alerting authorities that you’ve been stealing from everybody? How are you going to live in your mega stupid mansion without very quickly getting a knock on the door from the tax man?

            • HubertManne@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              because you don’t own the lambourghini or the mansions. you just use them time to time. its not has hard as you make it. I mean its happening right now. Many rich people have property owned by corps that are owned by trusts. there is this whole specific thing because the company owns thing liability wise but the trust does ownership wise. its a crazy rabbit hole if you ever want to go down it.

              • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Then we need to seriously rewrite corporate charter law. For example, maybe it shouldn’t even be legal for corporations to own other corporations. Limited liability as a concept has some value, in terms of encouraging investment. So there is value in LLCs existing. But we don’t need the free-for-all we have now. We could move corporate governance to a white list model, where there are only a set series of structures you’re allowed to use to organize a company.

                Among these are the regulations would be restrictions on the forms of compensation you’re allowed to provide high-value employees. Maybe the only legal form of pay for executives should be salary.

                And again, you can enforce this by relying on the little people that the executives don’t even recognize as human. Does a CEO formally have $10 million to their name, but they have exclusive use of a $100 million mansion provided by their company? Fine, let the janitor rat him out, and in turn the janitor will end up owning that mansion.

                • HubertManne@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I do feel like we should not allow logical entities to own other logical entities. you can have a wrap something up to allow for pooling assets with individuals but it does seem like allowing multi levels like this causes all sorts of shenanigans. so yeah you can have a trust but no owning companies and if a company buys a company it becomes a combined company or the sale is not allowed.

              • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Uh huh, but it doesn’t work like that. Somebody has to own that lambo at some point, be it a person or company. You could have 100 people pool together half their resources and have half a billion dollar company that rents out lambos but at that point, what is the point of it all?

                If in that universe, with wealth caps, somebody wants to show off with a Lamborghini, go ahead, its dumb. You’re sinking boat loads of money into showing off to other people that you’re just as rich as they are.

                Either way, that doesn’t matter. Nobody can cross the 10M line, nobody is stupid rich, governments get huge incomes, to me it sounds like a great change

          • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            There are ways around this. For example, let’s say you set the wealth cap at 10 million. You write a law that says, “anyone that reports an illegal fortune larger than this will receive half of the money confiscated from this illegal fortune to divide tax-free among yourself, friends, and family.”

            Billionaires don’t know how to manage their own money. They hire accountants. So you make it so any random accountant can rat out an illegal billionaire and get paid enough to not only max out their own lifetime allowable fortune, but those of all their friends and family.

            Sure, the billionaire could avoid this by just dividing up his wealth among his own friends and family. But in that case, he’s still losing control. And that’s ultimately the point of this. Thousands of low-digit millionaires are infinitely superior to one billionaire.

        • pyr0ball@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yep, can’t do much about that other than vote and write my useless representatives. Taking back what they stole and putting it to work for the masses, to do the grind, that’s something I can do now.

          Peregrine, Snipe, and Kiwi are all available for free on the managed cloud accounts and I’m handing out beta keys for free for a while so please do try them out if you find one that’s useful!

    • kinther@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Agreed. The promise of AI when I was younger (80s 90s) was it would do all the jobs no one wanted and we as humans could focus on arts, entertainment, and leisure. Somehow along the way those got crossed.

  • timestatic@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Politically the system of work in return for pay will have to change. Maybe a small amount of people may still work but most will probably get basic universal income. Thats the only politically feasible outcome

  • OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thats assuming that complete transition goes unchallenged. I might be misanthropic, but history has shown humans can be fark’n stubborn

  • potoooooooo 🥔@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Rich people mostly. But you can save your camp currency/scrip for a few years and buy some approved shoes or whatever at the work camp store.