There's another scenario... 100 companies employ 1000 engineers

The person you're replying to is obviously and explicitly aware that that is another scenario, and the whole point of their comment was to argue against it and explain why they think something else is more likely. Merely restating the thing they were already arguing against adds nothing to the discussion.

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

aurareturn 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why do you think this outcome is more likely?

▲

oldjim798 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Because this is what capital has told us. Capital always wants to reduce the labour cost to $0.

▲

aurareturn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If labor cost is close to $0, even more businesses that weren’t viable before would become viable.

Do you not see the logic?

▲

menaerus 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Demand is the driver not only the cost.

▲

squeefers 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

ai is bad because it's automated his job. luddites in tech. a real contradiction

	▲	DangitBobby 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not really a contradiction, since the entire point of jobs and the economy at all is to serve the specific needs of humanity and not to maximize paper clip production. If we should be learning anything from the modern era it's something that should have always been obvious: the Luddites were not the bad guys. The truth is you've fallen for centuries old propaganda. Hopefully someday you'll evolve into someone who doesn't carry water for paperclip maximizers.

▲

9rx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Zero labor cost should see the number of engineers trend towards infinity. The earlier comment suggested the opposite — that it would fall to just 1000 engineers. That would indicate that the cost of labor has skyrocketed.

▲

DangitBobby 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That doesn't make sense. Demand isn't entirely dictated by cost. There is only so much productivity the world is equipped to consume.

▲

9rx 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What difference does that make? If the cost of an engineer is zero, they can work on all kinds of nonsensical things that will never be used/consumed. It doesn't really matter as it doesn't cost anything.

▲

DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm kinda baffled by your suggestion. That's just not how people or organizations run by people operate. Cost is not the only driver to demand.

	▲	9rx 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> That's just not how people or organizations run by people operate. Au contraire. It's not very often that the cost of labor actually drops to anywhere close to zero, but we have some examples. The elevator operator is a prime example. When it was costly to hire an operator we could only hire a few of them. Nowadays anyone who is willing to operate an elevator just has to show up and they automatically get the job. If 1,000 engineers are worth having around, why not an infinite number of them, just like those working as elevator operators? Again, there is no cost in this hypothetical scenario. > Cost is not the only driver to demand. Technically true, but we're not talking about garbage here. Humans are always valuable to some degree, just not necessarily valuable enough when there is a cost to balance. But, again, we're talking about zero cost. I expect you are getting caught up in thinking about scenarios where labor still has a cost, perhaps confusing zero cost with zero payroll?