I will repeat myself again: the employee pay is not based on the profit the company makes (given what I am suggesting), but rather the value generated by his labor. Please don't mix up profit with value.
To the point they have gained much more money over the years than lost? How about Amazon...
In a society centered around capitalism, there is no avoiding the development of AI. Are there risks involved? Sure, but since when has that prevented people interested in making a profit, particularly when we are talking about a lot of profit?
I am talking causation too, not correlation. Can you please cite now as many capitalist countries as you can that got a lot of people out of poverty that were neither: colonizers, imperialists, nor significantly supported by one of the former two?
I see a complete different set of reasons for the lack of highly specialized individuals when it happens.
First of all, lack of information. People might not even be aware there is a demand for a given well-paying job.
Second, getting a proper education to do those jobs generally requires...
If I understood you correctly, you are saying that only people with an innate very high intelligence will be able to perform those jobs. But why do you presume this?
I think we are approaching the point where something akin to UBI will be mandatory. Robots/AI will be eventually more cost-effective than humans in many different fields, to the point that even paying the bare minimum necessary for human survival will be expensive in comparison.
What do you call putting your desire for power above everyone else's needs?
I am not really talking about giving it away as charity. I am talking about taxation.
Because what I am suggesting wouldn't cripple the economy.
Cite as many capitalist countries as you can that got a lot of people out of poverty that were neither: colonizers, imperialists, nor significantly supported by one of the former two.
Ok.
There is still value being generated by the labor. The exception would be when the employee messes up or when the employer is asking the employee to do something that doesn't generate value.
Let me provide an example: You buy raw goods and hire someone to produce a given final product...
I am not viewing the opposition per se as psychopaths though. I am talking about someone that would view a social issue such as 'there is a half million homeless people in the US' and say that it doesn't need to be solved.
Ok, but I don't think individuals, in general, would be any better off in a society you are suggesting. Even with a government that redistributes wealth, we fail to grant a decent life to everyone. Why would the capital naturally flow in a way where the vast majority of people would benefit from...
As I have said before, that's alright because then we, at least, share a common ground and conversation is made possible.
What are you calling 'cracks'?
In both cases, wages should be as close as possible to the value generated by the labor. But that is an ideal scenario that is not...
Incorrect. Knowing whether a country is capitalist is insufficient to determine if most of it's population is (very) poor. On the other hand, knowing it used to be a colonizer is sufficient to determine that.
It does not. Because it doesn't make sense to have a debate with a psycopath concerning social issues if he is going to pull the 'there is no need to solve that' card.
Great. So our disagreement is on the extent. Where do you draw the line and why?
If the employee is responsible for the...