filter: 💡 🐘 🏟 👽🕒🐦 📺 💰


It's actually a lot simpler than that. Incrementally decreasing the minimum work week for survival would drive up the cost of labor in low paid work. This would spur investment in automation of any of the low-wage work that's essential for society to function. This would necessitate an influx of engineering careers that aim at automation, and since the engineers would also be working less there'd be a tremendous need for retraining for higher wage engineering work. Something like this is happening now where fast food work is starting to be automated due to the labor shortage. The technology for that has been here for a while, but it's been uneconomical relative to hiring desperate people out there willing to work for very little just to survive. You can look at this another way, by increasing the financial power of the lowest paid worker relative to the highest paid, you reincentivize economic planning centered on the good of all players in the economy rather than just the rich. After all, capitalism is just the part of our economic decision planning algorithm where each unit's decision weight is set by potential financial transaction size. (Also you've mixed in a bunch of capitalist propaganda that assumes privatization and capital accumulation are the reason for increased productivity. I'd ask you to prove any of that. I think you're employing a Panglossian fallacy assuming this system is the best possible because of any favorable outcome. There's a much more likely theory that it was simply colonization and systematic resource deprivation that provided for the surplus that allowed for accelerated technological advancement in one part of the world at the expense of slowed progress for those who were stolen from. I believe a more globally egalitarian distribution of resources should have produced even greater total technological advancement by today.)