By: Sen. Sanders; Fox News AI oligarchs do not want to just replace specific jobs, the reality is that they want to replace workers Artificial intelligence (AI) is the most transformational technology in the history of the world — and will have a profound impact on the life of every man, woman and child in […]
This argument falls apart the second you think it through for more than 30 seconds.
If AI were to “replace the working class” outright, who exactly is left to pay rent, buy products, or participate in the economy at all? Companies don’t operate in a vacuum, they depend on mass consumption. No working class means no customers. No customers means no revenue. It’s not a controversial take it’s basic economic reality.
The idea that large corporations are collectively marching toward eliminating their own consumer base is not just wrong, it’s absurd. Firms adopt automation to reduce costs and increase productivity, not to self destruct their own markets.
What’s actually happening is far less dramatic and far more grounded, specific jobs get automated, new ones emerge, and the labor market shifts. That transition can absolutely be messy and uneven, and yes, it can hurt people in the short term. That’s a real conversation worth having.
But this “AI will wipe out the working class entirely” narrative isn’t serious analysis, it’s just lazy doomposting dressed up as insight.
If you’re going to criticize AI, at least engage with how economic systems actually function instead of defaulting to an echo chamber of half formed panic.
Economies are strongest when small amojnts change hands often which is exactly the opposite of what the current concentration of wealth seeks to do. These are people who work and vote against minimum wage increases, unions, and who constantly push propaganda blaming the working class for spending money to deflect from the fact that they don’t pay enough.
It’s not “absurd” to say that the richest among us are trying to drain wealth out of the working class because it’s happening in broad daylight. We can all see it, they don’t give a shit about their employees. It’s to the point were every 4-day work-week experiment has been a success both for employee happiness and productivity but we still aren’t seeing that schedule being adopted.
The rich do not care about you, and if millions of the working class die they don’t give a shit. Slave plantations weren’t actually all that efficient but it didn’t matter because it the abuse was part of it.
You are imparting rationality on a system known for not acting rationally. Capitalists both act against their own interests and against the larger communities interests quite frequently. Economists sometimes describe it is “economic externalities” and recognised long ago that modelling players as rational actors was flawed. Why would companies risk their own futures by funding climate denialism?
This argument falls apart the second you think it through for more than 30 seconds.
If AI were to “replace the working class” outright, who exactly is left to pay rent, buy products, or participate in the economy at all? Companies don’t operate in a vacuum, they depend on mass consumption. No working class means no customers. No customers means no revenue. It’s not a controversial take it’s basic economic reality.
The idea that large corporations are collectively marching toward eliminating their own consumer base is not just wrong, it’s absurd. Firms adopt automation to reduce costs and increase productivity, not to self destruct their own markets.
What’s actually happening is far less dramatic and far more grounded, specific jobs get automated, new ones emerge, and the labor market shifts. That transition can absolutely be messy and uneven, and yes, it can hurt people in the short term. That’s a real conversation worth having.
But this “AI will wipe out the working class entirely” narrative isn’t serious analysis, it’s just lazy doomposting dressed up as insight.
If you’re going to criticize AI, at least engage with how economic systems actually function instead of defaulting to an echo chamber of half formed panic.
Economies are strongest when small amojnts change hands often which is exactly the opposite of what the current concentration of wealth seeks to do. These are people who work and vote against minimum wage increases, unions, and who constantly push propaganda blaming the working class for spending money to deflect from the fact that they don’t pay enough.
It’s not “absurd” to say that the richest among us are trying to drain wealth out of the working class because it’s happening in broad daylight. We can all see it, they don’t give a shit about their employees. It’s to the point were every 4-day work-week experiment has been a success both for employee happiness and productivity but we still aren’t seeing that schedule being adopted.
The rich do not care about you, and if millions of the working class die they don’t give a shit. Slave plantations weren’t actually all that efficient but it didn’t matter because it the abuse was part of it.
You are imparting rationality on a system known for not acting rationally. Capitalists both act against their own interests and against the larger communities interests quite frequently. Economists sometimes describe it is “economic externalities” and recognised long ago that modelling players as rational actors was flawed. Why would companies risk their own futures by funding climate denialism?