Comment: The individual laborer

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: you're assuming that the loss (see in situ)

The individual laborer

that loses his job does not have to make his own loss up. Society will be made more wealthy through access to cheaper goods. The worker that drops out of the work force is not just going to shrivel up and die, he is going to continue to consume and will find a way to afford to do it. The machines are going to be working to produce goods for him and the rest of the masses at a price they can afford. Just examine the level of comfort that has been achieved as a result of technology in society today where nearly all Americans, even those living in poverty, have televisions, cell phones, access to food, etc. This is a direct result of streamlined production, which is done almost entirely by automated equipment already, at least in the factories in the United States. Technology is not going to add to poverty as a result of replacing workers. It might be used by government to enforce greater encroachments on our liberties, which would lead to greater centralization and less economic prosperity. But, once again, we are talking about greater use of robots in the work force leading to unemployment and increased poverty.

I am most certainly not suggesting that greater liberty is the inevitable outcome of new technology. Only that greater access to material wealth accumulation will inevitably be achieved if production is made more efficient. If libertarian economic thought is not on its way to being accepted, then our economic future is not looking good for a large portion of the work force with or without robots. Economic capital will continue to be misallocated and harder to accumulate; resulting in higher unemployment and less wealth for society.