LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 351
0 members and 351 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 05-24-2020, 12:48 PM   #1893
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,231
Re: Swede emotion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
(1) You said, in a previous post, "The express intent of many forms of tech - and how it makes the huge sums it does for the fortunate few - is to eliminate massive pools of labor by doing the work that labor does via robot, platform, or algorithm."

That's not the "express intent" of tech companies, any more than it is of any other company, and any more than it has been of all sorts of companies that have offered new technology for decades.

(2) You want to enjoy the benefits of the products that the tech companies sell, but you don't want to take any responsibility for the societal costs of those business. You and their shareholders both profit. There's no principled reason for you to be selfish, except that you're fundamentally selfish.
That quote you cite as being offered earlier is actually within the quote I cited.

But on substance, you avoid what's probably the most salient point to emerge in the conversation: Charge Me More For Tech.

Lanier suggests taxing tech companies for use of information, which would make tech more costly to consumers like me. This would slow tech's removal of jobs.

When you give me labor-avoiding tech at a tiny cost, you are employing Wal Mart's model in regard to displaced workers. Just as Wal Mart depends on govt subsidizing its workers with welfare, tech depends on the govt providing a safety net for those it displaces in order to sell that tech at super low prices (which tech thinks it needs to do in order gain market share, a feature of most start-up business models).

What if instead we raised the costs of tech doing what it does via tax policy, which in turn raises the cost of tech to people like me. This would be a fair structure that would provide more smoothness to the disruption cycle.

This I'd agree to. But making those who don't use your tech subsidize tech providers and consumers like me? That's outrageous. The corporate park landscaping company three miles down the road should not be paying for me to avoid paying an assistant or any tech titan to buy another Ferrari.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 05-24-2020 at 12:50 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:26 PM.