Forums

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Cars were the tech of an earlier time. Buggy whip makers may have been a small part of the economy, but horses were lots of work for lots of people.

And you are not quite right about the express intent of many forms of tech. The idea is to "disrupt" by creating something new and better. Eliminating labor is a collateral effect, but not the objective.



Maybe so, but almost always there is a creation of new value, not just a shifting of labor costs to tech company owners. Uber hurt a lot of taxi drivers, but now you can use an app to get a car much faster.



Were cars predatory because they eliminating buggy whip makers? No one says that.



I think we all want to focus on the value we are creating. Some of that is replacing things that don't work as well.



Yes.



You like to talk about this problem, but you're not actually willing to do anything about it, are you? Except UBI, of course, the exception that proves the rule.

If you think tech should bear the burden for the safety for the rest of the country, explain how that should work.



What does the class war accomplish?



You can't explain what a "fix" even is, unless you mean UBI. What do you think should be done?



If you don't use tech, then you can be holier-than-thou about who pays. But you do. You want the benefits that tech creates for consumers, but you want to let someone else pay the costs.



Or, huge companies would have a lot of large campuses, like they do.

honestly, the "tech replacement" you two are arguing about was done by about 1995. Seb, what more is coming?