Anticapitalist bad think. Prepare the mechanical hound.
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
231 points (97.1% liked)
Showerthoughts
41553 readers
629 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
who cares? that's not this year's problem let alone this quarter. this year, profits go up
It's illegal to look at next year
The robots won't have all the jobs. And the demand for human labor will increase.
There will always be some jobs humans can't do. It's not that there's something magical about humans and the human mind. It's just that there are certain jobs that are so complex and involve such human emotional intelligence and human interaction, that any machine that could do this instead of a person would have to be a person themselves. I might trust Commander Data to be my kid's elementary school teacher. But that's also because I would consider Commander Data to be a person. But there would also be little reason to mass produce Commanders Data to be elementary school teachers, as that would amount to little more than slavery. A mind is a mind, regardless of the substrate. Forcing a mind to work for you is a moral abomination, regardless of whether that mind is flesh or silicon.
As automation has increased over the generations, the demand for human labor has increased. The fields whose services have increased in price high above inflation are non-coincidentally those with the highest amount of unavoidable human labor. Think medicine, higher education, and home construction. Automation generates vast wealth. People who profit from highly automated industries then have more money to spend on things. There's more money in the economy to support the labor-intensive industries. But automation can't meaningfully decrease the cost of producing them. So the wealth generated in low-labor intensity industries goes towards bidding up the cost of the goods and services produced in high-labor intensive industries.
Or another way to look at it. Automation is deflationary. Whenever the production of a good or service becomes highly automated, the cost that good or service tends to go down. There's a reason the idea of a walk-in-closet would have been considered absurd to your ancestors. When people spend less money on the automated goods, they have more money to spend on the labor-intensive goods.
Or, a third perspective. A reasonable assumption is that future automation will look like past automation. Yes, automation can be disruptive on an individual level. If you're 55 and your entire career specialty is automated away, you're going to be really hurting at a personal level. You just don't have time to retrain for a new career field, and medically you may be unable to. But as a whole, people move into fields that have high need for workers. We have a higher labor force participation rate than we did 200 years ago, despite only a single-digit percentage of people needing to work in agriculture now. Wave after wave of automation has failed to result in the predicted mass employment and immiseration of the populace. And every time we're told that "this time is different," it turns out to be no different than the previous times. The people telling you that this round of automation will be completely different from all the others are the same people profiting from the current AI bubble.
The automation that AI is promising (but not necessarily delivering) is fundamentally different than the automation that came before.
Remember; the luddites were right but their industry was small enough that the displaced labour could be absorbed by other industries.
Not only is AI affecting almost every artistic and white-collar industry, but the cap-ex barrier to entry is way lower than for any other automation effort in the past. No need to buy expensive machines, or create whole new production lines just to test it out. Computers used to take up an entire room to do the work of a handful of people. If you can increase productivity but there is no associated increase in demand, then what you get is layoffs.
The amount of workers that this has the potential to displace far outstrips the industry/economy/society's ability to replace with "new careers" (that we've yet to see materialize). And I challenge your assertion that automation has resulted in increased demand for human labour, do we significantly less unemployment on average? Over the last 70 years (in the USA for ex) unemployment has been trending up.
What we have seen is a total gutting of employee bargaining power.
Why do you assume these all need to be new careers? Why do you assume that we can't expand existing careers? It's happened in the past, it can happen again. Agriculture went from employing the majority of the populace to 2%. We found jobs for everyone.
There are many professions that have immense latent demand that people simply cannot afford. Really any industry that involves a lot of human labor. People want more education than they can afford. People want more healthcare than they can afford. People want more childcare, private tutoring, home cleaning, personal trainers, life coaches, financial advisors, and on and on. Think of the retinue of assistants and employees the wealthy employ. Now imagine the number of people who can afford those services drastically expanding. We don't even need to necessarily invent new careers. There's plenty of latent demand already. Those masses of displaced agricultural workers? Most of them found jobs in fields that already existed.
Over the last 70 years (in the USA for ex) unemployment has been trending up.
This is false. I'll ignore the employment rate and focus on labor force participation rate, as unemployment doesn't count people who are long-term unemployed and have given up working. Labor force participation is a better metric here.
Labor force participation has gone up and down, corresponding with changes in demographics. Despite generations of technological change and automation, we've always found ways to employ the excess labor. Human labor is always the ultimate bottleneck. There's probably enough latent demand for human labor to employ many multiples of our current population.
It's just gonna be the same 8 companies passing money between each other. Kinda like the Nvidia/openAI circle jerk. Us peasants will live in company towns, and be paid in company dollars that we can spend to buy food and water, from the company. Don't worry, they'll deduct rent straight from our checks.
I've always been kind of a Balam simp. They at least pretend to be upfront and halfway honorable. Arquebus was always too pretentious. Honestly I'd probably end up in the Dosers anyways. Drugs seems like a reasonable reaction to galaxy spanning corporate overlords.
No-one will have to be worried about budgets once SkyNet takes over.
I'll be like the oil tanker level measuring fella in Waterworld when the MIRVs rend the sky over my city. Oh, thank god.
It's not that hard
Wealth caps. Worldwide. Start at something reasonable, say 10 million
Anything over that goes 100% tot axes. Nobody has a "right" to more than that, nobody needs more than that. No, you don't NEED three Lamborghini's, you don't need 20 houses.
Keep everything else the same, just a single rule to make a huge difference
Governments now will have enough income to fund a huge social net with free education, free healthcare, universal income so that people can spend money to keep the economy running
People now can choose to do some of the little work left.
On a side note: fuck these AI clowns for focussing on AI on exactly those tasks that make life worth living instead of focussing on the mundane shit tasks that nobody wants to do. Garbage collection still requires humans yet these shit stains claim that art andusic is now covered. Yay! Now we have shitty AI art and shitty jobs!
I agree, man. Let the tots axe whoever makes over 10 million and keeps it!!
So I am working on the mundane task part...
Not really the part of "wealth caps", but still, good on you!
Yep, can't do much about that other than vote and write my useless representatives. Taking back what they stole and putting it to work for the masses, to do the grind, that's something I can do now.
Peregrine, Snipe, and Kiwi are all available for free on the managed cloud accounts and I'm handing out beta keys for free for a while so please do try them out if you find one that's useful!
you don't even need that. If you have more brackets and keep going up in percentages and tax every type of income including investments in progressive way then you will get to a point where its just to hard to make more than say 10 million. We basically had this. When we had tax brackets that went up to 95% and only 40% for investment and that limited wealth quite a bit. Rates need to be the same regardless of source be it inheritance, lottery winnings, wages, or investments. Heck im fine with not paying taxes on things if you legally lock it up so it can't be sold. still have to pay any income it creates year to year but can't sell it or transfer it in any way. combine this with a 1% tax on all buying and selling which would be a massive reduction for most purchases but would be a vast increase for stock and bond trading. would completely clear out short term trading.
What’s wild is that, as you say, we used to have this system in the US. We even had it during the time conservatives are so nostalgic for.
Gradually, over the past 60 or so years, all the prosperity has been siphoned back toward the top, and now it’s a radical idea to propose the system that our grandfathers lived under.
The point of the cap is more to really have it clear that NOBODY has the right to hoard wealth. Everybody can be free to live the way they want to, everybody can live perfectly comfortable, and the psycho types amongst us that need to have that little bit more than the rest are perfectly fine being a little richer than the rest while spending their lives on work, if they like that... But nobody is allowed to be crazy rich anymore. If you don't cap it, ways will be found around it, they will add a few laws, repeal a few others, and we're back to today again.
This is just a single hard stop, no ways around it, you have a hard physical limit, and anyone even remotely suggesting we can drop this rule is known for being a hoarding pyschopath immediately.
I sorta get you but I do think a soft cap is the way to go. those pyschopaths will literally just go underground. hiding wealth, capping all family and such. I mean they do this anyway basically but with a soft cap it just makes it harder for them to decide which is worse. working more or finding a better system to get more or working more or finding a better way to circumvent the system.
There are ways around this. For example, let's say you set the wealth cap at 10 million. You write a law that says, "anyone that reports an illegal fortune larger than this will receive half of the money confiscated from this illegal fortune to divide tax-free among yourself, friends, and family."
Billionaires don't know how to manage their own money. They hire accountants. So you make it so any random accountant can rat out an illegal billionaire and get paid enough to not only max out their own lifetime allowable fortune, but those of all their friends and family.
Sure, the billionaire could avoid this by just dividing up his wealth among his own friends and family. But in that case, he's still losing control. And that's ultimately the point of this. Thousands of low-digit millionaires are infinitely superior to one billionaire.
thats an interesting take. problem is we are already dealing with tens of billions which is closing in on hundreds to likely some of these finance guys are already pulling in hundreds of mil. Might have to start that cap at a billion and titer it down.
Good luck going underground.
How are you going to drive your third lambourghini around without alerting authorities that you've been stealing from everybody? How are you going to live in your mega stupid mansion without very quickly getting a knock on the door from the tax man?
because you don't own the lambourghini or the mansions. you just use them time to time. its not has hard as you make it. I mean its happening right now. Many rich people have property owned by corps that are owned by trusts. there is this whole specific thing because the company owns thing liability wise but the trust does ownership wise. its a crazy rabbit hole if you ever want to go down it.
Then we need to seriously rewrite corporate charter law. For example, maybe it shouldn't even be legal for corporations to own other corporations. Limited liability as a concept has some value, in terms of encouraging investment. So there is value in LLCs existing. But we don't need the free-for-all we have now. We could move corporate governance to a white list model, where there are only a set series of structures you're allowed to use to organize a company.
Among these are the regulations would be restrictions on the forms of compensation you're allowed to provide high-value employees. Maybe the only legal form of pay for executives should be salary.
And again, you can enforce this by relying on the little people that the executives don't even recognize as human. Does a CEO formally have $10 million to their name, but they have exclusive use of a $100 million mansion provided by their company? Fine, let the janitor rat him out, and in turn the janitor will end up owning that mansion.
I do feel like we should not allow logical entities to own other logical entities. you can have a wrap something up to allow for pooling assets with individuals but it does seem like allowing multi levels like this causes all sorts of shenanigans. so yeah you can have a trust but no owning companies and if a company buys a company it becomes a combined company or the sale is not allowed.
Agreed. The promise of AI when I was younger (80s 90s) was it would do all the jobs no one wanted and we as humans could focus on arts, entertainment, and leisure. Somehow along the way those got crossed.
Companies they already have most of the wealth and one reason stocks don't follow reality anymore. As long as they are willing to pass money around price goes up.
Politically the system of work in return for pay will have to change. Maybe a small amount of people may still work but most will probably get basic universal income. Thats the only politically feasible outcome
This is pretty much what the empires in the world war era were asking. They found the answer and it was poor, developing countries.
Rich people mostly. But you can save your camp currency/scrip for a few years and buy some approved shoes or whatever at the work camp store.
Rich will give robots money to spend on them to make the feel better
Hmm 🧐
Marx figured that out centuries ago. Communism is the only solution to automatisation. Capitalism is an inferior, unstable system.
load more comments
(17 replies)
view more: next ›