How many 10x productivity revolutions do we need? At the end of it, will there be only one person left producing everything for humanity in 5 minutes each Tuesday afternoon?

  • Epzillon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    This is what I find fascinating about capitalism. It builds on the premise of increasing profit by increasing efficiency and quantity. With that mindset we should strive to improve efficiency until no one needs to work and everything is automated and autonomous, no? That would be the peak of efficiency? But then how would people pay for the products being produced? They cant, it needs to be free, since no one has a salary because theyre not working. But then the CEOs wouldnt make money. So theres no incentive unless your goal is not monetary but to improve the ultimate wellbeing of humanity. Its inherently a flawed concept since the main incentive is monetary, yet we refuse to accept what must be the ultimate goal to be able to keep power above others.

    And yes, i know this is very simplified. But still explain to me why we do mass layoffs in favor of AI slop if the incentive is not entirely monetary and for the sake efficiency and or cutting costs. Explain how and who will survive the further we go along? Capitalism at its core makes the rich the survivors. There wont be infinite recursions of 10x productivity revolutions because the workers will die off in the process.

  • lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    There is a hole in the heart of every rich person. They try to fill that hole with money, but the hole is never full.

    When Elon Musk and every person like him says, “I have enough money”: that is when the people who actually produce value will have reached enough productivity. Not before.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 days ago

    Once I would probably have said when everybody has enough.
    But I have found out that is naive, because looking at billionaires, it’s obvious that people just increase their consumption to the extreme if they can. Apparently we will never have “enough”.

    With near limitless resources, we will probably want to own our own planets.

    • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Actually, ironically, that would be BETTER than what we have now. Billionaires increasing their consumption would at least mean they’re SPENDING their money on something which is paying SOMEONE.

      Instead they hoard and do nothing with it.

  • booly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Increasing productivity of workers is met with demand for more production-intensive products. It’s like how every time hardware improves, software becomes more complex to take advantage of that increased capability. It’s like Jevon’s Paradox, but applied to productivity of workers.

    One prominent example: our farmers are more productive than ever. So we move up the value chain, and have farmers growing more luxury crops that aren’t actually necessary for sustenance. We overproduce grains and legumes, and then feed them to animals to raise meat. We were so productive with different types of produce that we decided to go on hard mode and create just-in-time supply chains for multiple cultivars so that supermarkets sell dozens of types of fresh apples, tomatoes, potatoes, onions, etc., and end up eating much more fresh produce of diverse varieties compared to our parents and grandparents, who may have relied more heavily on frozen or canned produce, with limited variety.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    Very interesting question!

    The economy doubles roughly every 20 years (since centuries at least), and for me we are already there (living in the EU mind you).

    We still need some more for renewables, but that’s about it IMO.

    NOW, that is my perspective, maybe people growing up today thinks “just a bit more and I’ll be satisfied”, but I doubt it. You can’t eat 50 steaks a day.

    The evident problem we have is that rich people siphon away lots of it, so we still have to get up at 8:30 and drive to work. A gradual transition (people still need to work) seems what would be the best way forward, IMO.

    • udon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, I guess I was thinking about this as “If we were to set a productivity goal for humanity, where would that be?” It’s a bit tiring in everyday life (in my line of work but I guess everywhere?) that you can always produce more of everything and there is no point where your todo list is just empty for a while. If it is, just add more items.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Never. The line must keep moving upwards. If it doesn’t come from productivity it comes from enshittification, layoffs, offshoring, etc.

  • zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    On a population level the more prodctive we are the higher living standard we can afford. Usually the choice is getting another gadget instead of fewer working hours in the US at least. Some European countries are reducing work weeks.

    • PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The ceo of the shitty place I work already owns two entire islands in Croatia. Guess what, it’s not enough and he wants to buy a third.

      Disgusting.