you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

“You should account for that.” Yes, that's precisely the point. How are you accounting for the people you accept will inevitably be poor?

You've read an endorsement of authoritarianism into a comment about how power operates regardless of who's wielding it in the modern era. Having your livelihood dictated by whoever owns the machines doesn't magically become freedom because they're a private company. And telling people poverty is optional becomes a fairly empty answer when the work they're supposed to escape it through is being automated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago* (1 child)

    You think youve got the answer but it suffers from exactly what i described.

    As for what accounting for poverty looks like I can list a number of liberal policy like income support for parents, job seekers, student's disabled people. The only people who fall 9outside this are people who have no disability and choose not to work. They're usually still supported.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago

    Income support is precisely the sort of thing I mean by accounting for poverty. What part of that do you think I'm opposing?

    And “chooses not to work” skips the issue I raised. Being able and willing to work doesn't guarantee someone is willing to employ you, especially when they can automate the job. How do those people fit into your answer?

  • source
  • parent