He talks a lot about the labor market vanishing and economy collapsing because people will have no money to spend. In that context, the implied solution is to get to a point where you earn your money from property, physical or intellectual or else you're fucked.
What I don't get is who will pay you your fees/rent/buy property if nobody has money to spend? Whether you are offering a service by selling your time or some property for rent, you compete in the same market for the same amount of money available in it. What decides whether you will earn is the value of your offering for people, not the type of offering.
In my view the safest way to ensure wellbeing is to be able to produce what you need and know people who you can trade with for the stuff you can't produce yourself.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Right, these apocalyptic views are mostly rubbish IMHO.
The flip side of "everyone loses their job" is that "everything craters in price." You can't have one without the other. And if the latter happens, then you don't need a job, because things approach "free" in cost.
I think what's going to happen is the same thing that has always happened with automation: some things get cheaper, this opens more doors for entrepreneurship, productive gets more efficient, everyone is better off.... rinse lather repeat.