To what end? Can't you just quit and get the same result?

Of course, on the other hand does it make sense to keep an obsolete field artificially alive because "jobs"? There are many new oportunities opening for us. One will be increasing demand for cybersecurity auditors, someone will need to wire those servers and someone else will need to expand the AI into more fields.

We humans don't like change much, but that doesn't mean we should pump money to blockbuster.

▲

selfhoster1312 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Quitting is an individual action with potential adverse consequences (misery).

The political question is why despite productivity in economic terms (which i know is flawed) growing many times over, do we still have to work as much, get paid so little, and have so many unemployed people looking for a job?

Looks like without a parasitic capitalist class, we could share resources and work and have people live better lives and work less.

	▲	exitb an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your job being automated to the point where you no longer proform it has the same adverse consequences. Whether this could work is some economic and societal setup is irrelevant, because that's not the world we live in.
	▲	po1nt an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What are you talking about? The only reason we could work less is because we always gave way to innovation. We don't haul large blocks of ice because "evil capitalists" started making fridges. Or do you want to reinstate ice trade, just because it generated more jobs? Or ban tractors because farming by hand was made by way more people? "Sharing resources" doesn't work. We share way too much just to keep pensioners alive and can't have kids because of that. Confiscating all the billionaire's wealth wouldn't make a dent and would destroy much more. Not sorry for the rant