Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless?
If it's the latter then I'm sure it could work...not sure it would be a huge improvement tho...
There's no money in this system.
> Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless?
If people want "homes" then they democratically vote that they do and, if the vote passes, then people volunteer to build those homes. If there aren't enough volunteers to build the homes, then people are conscripted. This is not unlike the military where if there aren't enough soldiers you draft more.
Everything we have today is because someone built it. What is stopping people from continuing to build in the absence of money? It seems money is more or less a "hack" to circumvent the shortcomings of human nature. There needs to be a culture shift towards a labor-first mindset and better role models (i.e. don't glorify the wealthy, glorify those who build amazing things and share them for free). People should build and innovate because they want to, because it means a better life. In the system I've described the standard of living people have is directly tied to what they and their neighbors are willing to work for. If folks don't want to work, then we'll go back to living in caves, but if we continue pressing forward then we'll eventually enter a Star Trekien techno-utopia.
A Luddite response to AI might be to tax the value AI created (Microsoft's profits) and use that to fund minimum wages/retraining. Not sure how that would work when the AI value is in one jurisdiction and job losses in another.
[1] https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-L...
It's because communism has the same issue Luddites have. Unless everyone is onboard, it doesn't work.
You can't stop people from trading between themselves for profit in a communist country without the threat of violence. This is what leads to all the other problems.
I mean Marx literally says you need to cull off the non believers for communism to work.
One solution (the Luddite one) is to eschew the technology. If nobody adopts the technology, nobody has to, but nobody can benefit. On the contrary, if anyone adopts the technology, all can benefit, but all also have to suffer the negative impacts. Without everyone on board, the Luddite solution cannot work.
Marx saw a different solution: communism. If the state owns the means of production, the working class and owning class benefit equally. It’s unlikely that we ever move toward this, in my opinion, due to the other issues inherent to communism (unfair (from the perspective of most policy makers) distribution of resources, corruption, etc.).
We need to find a new solution; one which enables people to benefit from technology while minimizing the downsides, or at least localizing the downsides to those who choose to adopt it. Right now we have, IMO, one of the worst situations of both worlds: privatized benefits with publicized costs. For instance, any taxpayer funded bailout.