"No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce."

"No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce."
-Thomas Sowell

whoa........ what did he mean by this?

you know damn well what he meant

unfortunately be came a cuckservative in his old age

WOW A BLACK MAN REPEATS BASIC CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINTS

LET ME SUCK HIS DICK AND BUY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HIS BOOKS

HES SO SMART

BASED BLACK MAN COMING THROUGH

He just had an article about gun control arguments being complete bullshit. He's my second favorite black dude.

To be fair he is fairly based.

No society ever had the productivity and automation we do

Who is yourvfavorite? Mozart?

All that means is that the bulk of people who used to be good for something are now good for nothing and consequently no longer necessary.

Automation means products get cheaper, not that some can not work at all and live off the state, but that there is now less work necessary to finance a living.

There's too many families with both parents working, the first step would be to go back to households with a single working person.

>reducing well-being and existential value to one's economic productivity value

Why force people into jobs to produce wealth, which can easily be done by automating the same job? As long as the wealth is created for us to enjoy

Sad part is he is just a token affirmative action nigger himself.

>no meaningful publications in any economic journal
>known for his 1 book, "basic economics" which is devoid of ANY mathematics and such a grossly simplified world view it can't be applied to anything more complex than a robinson crusoe economy

>the wealth of a few elites is somehow interpreted as 'wealth for us'

>Automation means products get cheaper

Yes, but it's not the only effect. The labor participation rate keeps dropping because the population is aging, because of automation and because more people tend to study longer. We just need less laborers to produce the goods and services we need. The only question that remains is to keep the distribution of these goods viable

>productivity keeps rising
>labor participation keeps dropping
>standard of living keeps rising

No correlation, right?

It conflicts with egoism, if you can earn a comfortable living while doing nothing, while taxing the productive people you will get more and more leeches.

There is always need for service jobs that will never be replaced by machines, there must be an incentive to work such a shitty job, otherwise productivity will reduce and everyone will be off worse.

Technology doesn't change the fact that if a bunch of people are parasites it destroys incentive for others to work hard if they can get off and have a free ride like everyone else.

>Known for his one book
>Attacks his "BASIC" economics books for not being advanced enough

Please kill yourself, you fucking leaf.

Yes, of course there always will be the need for service jobs - But just not in the same degree or the same quantity as automation goes forward. And what do you do with the laborers that get replaced? Their consumption / purchasing power is directly linked to the labour of the 'productive people'. It's a economic game we play to keep the system going until automation culminates when nearly all goods and services are automated.

>everything will be automated meme

Stale. Never going to happen.

Sowell is an excommunist. He's known liberal retardation first hand because he used to be them

Can't you fucking read? I said nearly all. If current automation trends continue, nothing will prevent our society from being able to automate at least 80 to 90% of all jobs in the following decades/centuries.

You see them as parasites. I see them as collateral damage from a society with increasing automation and productivity

If there is only a very small amount of very hard or high qualified jobs left there must be a big incentive to do them.

If a job will allow you to support many people, e.g. a whole family or even relatives this will give him high status in society.

If the state is responsible for redistribution instead its exploitation of those that still work.

>Call a renowned economist an idiot because he has black skin
>Not acknowledging the fact that outliers exist

You're why people don't take racial realism seriously.

Sooner or later someone is going to grow tired of paying for the increases in 'living standards' of those who do precisely nothing.

Sounds like he's talking about the capitalist class getting rich off the surplus produced by labour.

Mine is Charlemagne, a true frenchman.

Kek.

You're fucking delusional if you honestly believe 9/10 jobs can be automated.

Mechanic, pilot, construction, arborist, engineer, machinest, chiropractor, biologist, wildlife/fishing/hunting guide, instructor (pick your field), sales, writer, philosophy, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Tell me again, guvna, how robots are going to "take over" 80-90% of jobs.

Maybe you should stop fapping to Elysium and return to the real world.

Let me know how those laborers paid for the material, tools, utilities, created the business model, the product, and put up the capital risk. I'll wait

cuck'd

>there's no such thing as a small business
>you cannot invest in your own materials or tools
>only the rich can make a business model or product
>only the wealthy pay for utilities

Cool story, bro.

But that's objectively wrong though, right?
What about the aristocracy?

Right after your wifes son?