This is a false dichotomy generated by corporate propaganda. The system is designed to make you feel this way. Trust me, I was saying these say things online in 2012, and jobs have only increased in number since then.
> When so much work can be performed by machines
Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business.
Why not? Why would you think that this is not a valid idea? Because in your premises you are assuming that all the machines are wildly expensive and well out of the reach of a small business owner.
But then that makes your premises an argument for the "inevitability" of consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few companies and not actually an argument against the number of possible jobs.
Do you see how subtle that is? Do you see how sneaky that false equivalence is?
Politicians and Wall street have been consolidating the economy into a few companies (via mergers, acquisitions, regulations, index funds, etc.) that can work at reduced losses and increased margins and f**ing over the younger generations primarily, but the middle class in general.
Yes, because in this "machine automated society" your supply chain is also coming from "automated" production and thus you have equivalent access to the same-priced goods as any competitor.
And before you scream about this being pedantic, perhaps first reconsider the original premise that you are proposing: automation taking over things and reducing job availability to nil. It's a fantastical premise to set.
Your reaction is only validation of my argument: you are actually arguing for some sort of inevitability of consolidation of the economy as if it is absolutely unavoidable. This is literally the same argument as Marx, disguised.
EDIT: you are also being profoundly intellectually dishonest when you do not acknowledge the plethora of existing SMBs that already compete against larger corporations (usually at local levels).
> Yes, because in this "machine automated society" your supply chain is also coming from "automated" production and thus you have equivalent access to the same-priced goods as any competitor.
What makes you think that the little guy will have access to the same prices as a megacorp? Walmart is famously able to squeeze suppliers[1]
because it has superior bargaining power. I doubt a mom and pop shop can do the same. Even if we somehow assume that the prices for supplies is the same, there's still the matter of cost of production. Large companies can benefit from pooled resources (eg. being able to hire engineering teams to optimize processes), or vertically integrate (eg. like how apple with their home grown processors).
>Your reaction is only validation of my argument: you are actually arguing for some sort of inevitability of consolidation of the economy as if it is absolutely unavoidable. This is literally the same argument as Marx, disguised.
My "reaction" consists of a one sentence question. I'm not sure how anyone would think that's a validation of anything, other than you trying to be smug. As for the reference to marx: I fail to see how it's relevant. Are arguments by him automatically wrong?
>EDIT: you are also being profoundly intellectually dishonest when you do not acknowledge the plethora of existing SMBs that already compete against larger corporations (usually at local levels).
Please check your own arguments before calling others "profoundly intellectually dishonest". You're basically arguing that because some business/sectors haven't consolidated yet, that consolidation isn't happening. By that logic global warming isn't happening either because there's still snow in some places and that some places are even cooling.
Learn to read. I never argued that. I clearly attributed consolidation outcomes in the economy to collusion between Washington and Wall Street.
This is proven. Anti-competitive regulation i.e. regulatory capture is more prevalent than ever.
The most recent example of blatant anti-competitive collusion was the recent case of multiple Big Tech companies colluding against Parler. And the well-paid Wall street puppets in Washington did absolutely nothing about it and often publicly spoke up in favor of it. Pure & corrupt crony consolidation.
Your argument, like Marx, works in favor of crony capitalism because it creates a false dichotomy between "inevitable consolidation" for a top few elite OR complete radical revolution destroying everything and starting over. The purpose of a false dichotomy being of course to obscure the actual truth which is that consolidation of the economy does not occur from a free market but only occurs from corruption, bureaucracy, and anti-competitive tactics.
It's pure idiocy. Full stop.
Go read some Von Neumann and Nash and educate yourself about actually likelihoods of outcomes.
for a standardized product no, but for personalization businesses a company can beat big corps in localized presence,flexibility,time execution (lower bureacracy and simpler org chart), customer service and even price while getting the fatter customers
> fighting irrelevance
This is a false dichotomy generated by corporate propaganda. The system is designed to make you feel this way. Trust me, I was saying these say things online in 2012, and jobs have only increased in number since then.
> When so much work can be performed by machines
Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business.
Why not? Why would you think that this is not a valid idea? Because in your premises you are assuming that all the machines are wildly expensive and well out of the reach of a small business owner.
But then that makes your premises an argument for the "inevitability" of consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few companies and not actually an argument against the number of possible jobs.
Do you see how subtle that is? Do you see how sneaky that false equivalence is?
Politicians and Wall street have been consolidating the economy into a few companies (via mergers, acquisitions, regulations, index funds, etc.) that can work at reduced losses and increased margins and f**ing over the younger generations primarily, but the middle class in general.