You are viewing a single comment's thread:
It's a situation that arises with technological advances; however, there's a trap they're naively falling into.
I'll give you an example that happened in Germany a few years ago and was the subject of economics studies a few years ago:
In a factory in a German town, a large amount of labor was used in different departments; the entire town lived off the factory's work.
Seeking to increase profits, the factory automated itself, to the point that they only needed about four people.
Profits increased significantly, but people were unemployed, and they stopped spending money and moved to the other city.
You need to pay people so that people will spend money on products and services. When you replace them with a machine, the machine doesn't move money, and saving a lot of money is pointless. If there are almost no people paying for the products, money doesn't circulate.
Sorry for the long answer. I tried to summarize it. The topic is quite broad and has already been studied in economics. I don't understand why it isn't being taken into account in the current situation. It's as if they were blind.