You’re not wrong. But, who’s work and productivity created the AI in the first place? If we’re talking about AI in general, that’s literally everyone that has ever written down a word, taken a photo, drawn a painting, sung a song, filled out spreadsheet, solved a math problem, written a line of code, etc, etc, etc.
At some point, we gotta accept that the way in which we decide “who profits” is fundamentally incompatible with our lives. Workers getting paid less (or having less jobs) while those same workers have to pay more for “better service” when they need a lawyer? That’s a system that cannot sustain itself economically. There will be no one left to pay for the better service. It’s a contradiction.
If the technology is built by using the collective knowledge of all of humanity, why do workers not just work less hours for the same pay? Why do clients not just pay the same for the same level of service?
Does the lawfirm board of executives really deserve the sum total of profit for purchase a technology that they had next to zero influence on creating?
I get your point. But the buyer will only pay for the value that the buyer perceives for the service or product. That’s not just capitalism, that has been the case since trade was invented. So you are paying a certain sum for a bicycle, because it is a transportation solution for a challenge that you and similar people have: how to get from A to B, it must be sturdy, comfortable etc. As the buyer, you don’t care whether one of the screws was produced under terrible circumstances, you won’t pay a higher price for that bike to help that poor person somewhere down the line, that whole concept is too abstract. I’m not saying that’s a good thing; but I’m skeptical we will ever be able to completely change that, as most buyers will just look at the price and check whether it reflects the value (eg many of us may know that, for many reasons, we shouldn’t buy Chinese products, but weirdly enough Chinese exports are still booming).
Inelastic services like healthcare, lawyers, etc. Your first sentence is not some “great truth” mate. Even basic capitalist economics contradicts it. Do you think people are paying massive spikes in Diesel because they see it’s value has increased? No. It has a near inelastic demand.
And why should we “not buy Chinese products?” Are you still stuck in the 90s thinking “Chinese product means poorly produced?”
You’re not wrong. But, who’s work and productivity created the AI in the first place? If we’re talking about AI in general, that’s literally everyone that has ever written down a word, taken a photo, drawn a painting, sung a song, filled out spreadsheet, solved a math problem, written a line of code, etc, etc, etc.
At some point, we gotta accept that the way in which we decide “who profits” is fundamentally incompatible with our lives. Workers getting paid less (or having less jobs) while those same workers have to pay more for “better service” when they need a lawyer? That’s a system that cannot sustain itself economically. There will be no one left to pay for the better service. It’s a contradiction.
If the technology is built by using the collective knowledge of all of humanity, why do workers not just work less hours for the same pay? Why do clients not just pay the same for the same level of service?
Does the lawfirm board of executives really deserve the sum total of profit for purchase a technology that they had next to zero influence on creating?
I get your point. But the buyer will only pay for the value that the buyer perceives for the service or product. That’s not just capitalism, that has been the case since trade was invented. So you are paying a certain sum for a bicycle, because it is a transportation solution for a challenge that you and similar people have: how to get from A to B, it must be sturdy, comfortable etc. As the buyer, you don’t care whether one of the screws was produced under terrible circumstances, you won’t pay a higher price for that bike to help that poor person somewhere down the line, that whole concept is too abstract. I’m not saying that’s a good thing; but I’m skeptical we will ever be able to completely change that, as most buyers will just look at the price and check whether it reflects the value (eg many of us may know that, for many reasons, we shouldn’t buy Chinese products, but weirdly enough Chinese exports are still booming).
Inelastic services like healthcare, lawyers, etc. Your first sentence is not some “great truth” mate. Even basic capitalist economics contradicts it. Do you think people are paying massive spikes in Diesel because they see it’s value has increased? No. It has a near inelastic demand.
And why should we “not buy Chinese products?” Are you still stuck in the 90s thinking “Chinese product means poorly produced?”