If jobs are “lost” because robots are doing more work, why is it a problem that the population is aging and there are fewer in “working age”? Shouldn’t the two effects sort of cancel each other out?
In: 13038
As has been pointed out, earnings from automation go to companies, and then to investors. But investors aren’t the big part of the population. Then, because investors have money, the things that investors want – shares and land, mostly – get crazy expensive, and so they become better investments, and you start a speculation frenzy. Meanwhile, the people who AREN’T investors can’t get onto the crazy train at all, and a big part of your population is stuck in the terrible service jobs that can’t be automated, and they can’t afford housing because investors have snapped it all up for speculation. Any of this starting to sound familiar?
Latest Answers