Capitalism also requires consumers, of which you can't be if you don't have money to spend. Economists have been pondering this question since the start of the industrial revolution. I think Keynes was one who thought formerly fully employed workers would turn to broader, humanitarian pursuits in the absence of the need to work. Capitalists have also been forced to ponder this question, from Ford being asked, "How are these machines going to buy your cars?" and even recently, Zuckerbot understanding that robots won't "buy the products advertised on facebook".uziq wrote:
that's a bit high concept for my mid-day coffee.
the labour less future doesn't need to involve misery -- the problem is that capitalism requires a surplus population outside of the workforce to keep the labour market in basic structural shape. these people are defined by chronic un- or underemployment and poor education, not by being in some blissful 'labour less' state.
I always raise an eyebrow when Capitalists float or back an idea like UBI - it's an implicit acknowledgement that the current system and trajectory are not in the best economic interest of the masses. It's also a sign of weakness or fear - they know they must give up some concessions, and their idea is to give back a small amount instead of structural change.
