probably multivariable like most problems

Machines played a big part I am sure, about 90% of people worked in agriculture before it

most people grew their own food

This was their profession, it also includes forestry in that statistic

Automation makes things cheaper. Which means people need less wealth. Also, if too many people are replaced by automation, but the price does not drop enough, then the owners of those tools start to see income decline as less people can afford them.

mexicans

Programmers, technicians, and engineers will be needed but not as many as we're needed to produce stuff before robots.

Lifestyle changes likely also part of great depression, higher demand for luxury requires doing more just enough to eat and trade food. Sears catalog became popular shortly before.

Also, as companies need less workers, they can expand as most are greedy enough to want to grow. Meaning that those jobs the removed get replaced with maintenance workers for themselves, and the suppliers they need to expand.

Can you estimate how many jobs will be lost vs created though Grenade?

Can you?

The issue here is not concept but scale.

Can you know for a fact unemployment will grow faster than new jobs?

The question will become what happens to our society when the disparity becomes even greater than now. When 80+% of wealth is held by a fraction of 1%. Is that sustainable without some kind of tectonic shift. I don't think so. I think Trump's election is recent proof that such inequity will not be tolerated.

unless we find a new market of work, it will

I would guess that would be the case otherwise why implement automation to begin with

As you state, with automation mass produced stuff becomes cheap enough that even the poor live like Kings of old.

Machines in the past raised unemployement without creating enough mechanics to replace the reduction in agricultural workers specifically

If peoples quality of life goes up despite inequality increasing, people wont care

Also, can you prove that a second great depression caused by automation would ultimately be bad. Is it worth it to have an increased period of human suffering if there is a massive drop in average human suffering after that growning pain is over?

But will the voting majority be satisfied with the crumbs even if they are a feast in a historical sense

yes

they are right now too

We need new jobs we can't imagine would exist for sure

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/16/elon-musk-humans-robots-slow-down-tesla-model-3-production

:shirt: Check out **Tim Pool's TeeSpring Merch**:
<https://teespring.com/stores/timcast>

:dollar: Support **Tim Pool** on Patreon (exclusive rewards available):
<https://www.patreon.com/timcast>

The question is if we can get them fast enough

Would you rather technically progress be halted now? Or perhaps in the 1700s? Because of fear of us not figuring shit out?

No

necessity is the mother of invention

The only way to predict the future is to limit it's possiblities.

But redistribution of wealth from machine to man is worth discussing

Is it? Does redistribute of wealth work?

how much you wanna redistribute?

That's part of the discussion

Feast might not come for anyone who survives the depression though

And can you prove it is not the default state of the market?

machines do not have wealth, they are someone's.

Yes, they are. Just as we tax cars we can tax automation.

The obvious answer is tax them then