• mecen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    They can sell to each other and centralize luxury and technology in their circle.

    Mega corpos don’t need poor consumers.

    Edit:

    Corpos want deregulation, monopolistic/cartelic market position, unaffordability for average people for education and technology.

    • SupahRevs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Agreed. We are already kind of there. We have enough food to feed everybody but the people who access it are those with enough money. Profitable food is what gets investments, not healthy food. And what we see more and more is that profits are not driven by feeding the best quality to the most people.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 days ago

    That’s someone else’s problem. They only care about making money this quarter

    Same as if all of civilization collapses because of climate change caused by global warming. It’s someone else’s problem, they’re just making money for themselves right now. Consequences are for the government that only suckers pay taxes into.

  • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 days ago

    Of all the jobs, CEO is probably one of the easiest jobs for an AI to replace. AI is excellent at being heartless, gaslighting shareholder, and telling people what they want to hear.

  • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 days ago

    Absolutely you can sell the fruits of AI labour to unemployed people. Give them a universal basic income and a product worth spending that resource on and you can keep your 1% profit while the rest is taxed to support the citizens economy. You’ll still be the richest man alive

    • HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think it could work economically. But a world where humans don’t really need to exist to keep the economy going is a little concerning when the economy is the absolute #1 thing governments and the media seem to care about.

      But why do they? Why isn’t human wellbeing considered more important? Actually IIRC the UK green party was looking to change that as an important metric.

  • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 days ago

    Naw, flawed argument, they steal our resources and then fund themselves by illegal and manipulative means.

    Also the economy is shifting where the top 1% are moving closer to being 50% of spending, making the argument rather void.

    • LazyBaby@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      This isn’t really sustainable though. Regardless of how rich you are, you only really need 1, maybe 2 pillows. You can only get so many haircuts in a year. They do absolutely need the poors.

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        No, but you do, and guaranteed that as they buy up and shut down competitors they will squeeze you for everything you’re worth over largely inelastic demands like pillows, or medicine, or soap…etc

        Also haircuts? Haircuts, unless we’re really that deep in corporate hell, are between you and the barber/shop. Billionaires aren’t cutting your hair, the person cutting your hair, the person who owns the salon or barbershop ever, is a peon just like you and me. Small business owners are in the same class as us.

        • LazyBaby@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          That’s increasingly not true. Local businesses barely exist anymore, soon your only option will be, like, great clips. Not sure what you mean about squeezing over inelastic demand. They can raise the prices of a pillow but they can’t make a profit when only 1% of the population is buying pillows

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 days ago

    Heard that CEO tenure is historically lower than it’s ever been. So their response is, “sounds like the other guy’s problem…”

    Kind of seems like that’s part of the problem? But what do I know, I’m just a toddler that stole Mommy’s phone and typed this quickly before she found me and 6&__++3GFd GGG vgggvfh42467!:"hhhghgjjj!!!

  • Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 days ago

    Other corporations.

    Capitalism is cannibalisitic. left unchecked it will destroy itself, the planet and everything else with it.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    How come these C-Suites never consider AI for the positions it would probably be best at: their own.

    Isn’t it funny how the “human employee removal ray” is never aimed at them?

  • ImWaitingForRetcons@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    The top few percent spend do much more money compared to everyone else that the top companies will happily continue targeting them and making money hand over fist even if the bottom 90% can’t afford shit anymore.

    • Napster153@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      And they’re getting upset anyhow because the AI’s solutions are just as braindead as the CEO’s and Shareholders themselves.

      This is literally watching the Kool Aid be drip fed day after day into your mouth.