For once companies could downsize not because they want to fire people but because there is an excess of jobs. There are many many businesses that produce in excess (take the clothing sector for instance) or others that have already hired beyond sustainability (software and tech). Many governments also have programs to hire in excess for non-required roles to reduce unemployment. There is so much room for optimization but realistically with other effects like average number of kids per family decreasing some degree of automatization beyond what we have now and some change in people's lifestyles will be required too.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Suddenly everyone has a shit ton more money and you think demand wouldn't go up?

Production would actually have to increase.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

some may fall into rampant consumerism even more, but some (hopefully many) will come out of it because they have money and time for decent hobbies actually. so instead of buying tons of easily consumable crap stuff of every kind to pass whatever little time they have, instead they will focus on buying less but more decent of the stuff they are really interested in.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So people who have a piece of crap car wouldn't replace it? People who don't have a car wouldn't get one? People who rent wouldn't want to buy a house? People who never went on vacation wouldn't want to travel? People who have a phone that barely works wouldn't get a newer model? People wouldn't start eating actual food instead of eating the cheapest stuff they can find? People wouldn't get new clothes, a new TV, new appliances that actually work properly, go to the restaurant...

Wealth redistribution means people can now afford to live a comfortable life, that means them getting what they need to be comfortable.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Cars and phones? %90 percent of people already has one of those. Better income will mean people only moving to better quality ones and the production shifting in that direction rather than accommodating a large economic range as it is now. Homes? There are probably enough homes for everyone, maybe even excess. It is just that richer people own more and rent them out. So no net change in required number of constructions. Clothing? You must be kidding, it is produced in so much excess that it can probably support double the existing population. And again if people get better pay, they will mostly move towards higher quality and not necessarily more of the same quality. Same thing with food, you said it yourself. Production of crap stuff will just be shifted towards production of better quality stuff that people can afford.

It is only people who are at the very bottom like homeless or extremely poor whose consumption will substantially increase with a better economic situation but there can be enough room for accommodating that with better optimized processes and more automation. So much of the stuff you have counted is produced in excess and goes to waste that I am sure even that would be enough to meet increased demand if regulated properly.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh so you want wealth to be redistributed in rich countries only and poor countries can stay poor, ok got it 👍

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

you sound like a person out of arguments, good bye.