the last paragraph is were capitalism fails, and where socialism works. 3 billion jobs can support 15 billion people, but that would mean giving the fruits of that labor to those people who have no jobs. This is distributing the product of the labor force to everyone, so everyone can live, that is socialism. If you say ok, let’s just have 3 billion people, one per job, then you aren’t producing for 15 billion, and now the job pool will shrink accordingly.
So, if/when machines come to a point where one, basic, job creates enough GDP to support a massive amount of people, then you need the populace to own the means of that production.
In my own statement, when I said that 3 billion jobs could maybe support 15 billion people, I said that from the capitalist mindset. What I meant when I said that was that one high income person could have up to 4 other people that actively has access to their income to utilize. This could be one person with a spouse and 3 kids or it could be a person with 2 sets of grandparents and great grand parents. As an example this would scale with number of persons with income. IE you could have a couple with 3 kids or 1 adult and 4 grand parents. The specifics don’t need to be specific, I was just trying to provide an extreme example of how far one income could go for the total world capitalist expenditure.
EDIT: To make it abundantly clear, my example was to express the extreme bounds of people with access to an income. That might be a kid on the Jersey shore with a credit card or a grand parent whom the income bringer is taking care of. Either way, there is a limited number of people that one income is actively taking care of and have access to that income. My original example was 3 billion persons with income and 15 billion persons spending the money. I think most adults can find 4 other people who spend money on their behalf by the age of 40.
the last paragraph is were capitalism fails, and where socialism works. 3 billion jobs can support 15 billion people, but that would mean giving the fruits of that labor to those people who have no jobs. This is distributing the product of the labor force to everyone, so everyone can live, that is socialism. If you say ok, let’s just have 3 billion people, one per job, then you aren’t producing for 15 billion, and now the job pool will shrink accordingly.
So, if/when machines come to a point where one, basic, job creates enough GDP to support a massive amount of people, then you need the populace to own the means of that production.
In my own statement, when I said that 3 billion jobs could maybe support 15 billion people, I said that from the capitalist mindset. What I meant when I said that was that one high income person could have up to 4 other people that actively has access to their income to utilize. This could be one person with a spouse and 3 kids or it could be a person with 2 sets of grandparents and great grand parents. As an example this would scale with number of persons with income. IE you could have a couple with 3 kids or 1 adult and 4 grand parents. The specifics don’t need to be specific, I was just trying to provide an extreme example of how far one income could go for the total world capitalist expenditure.
EDIT: To make it abundantly clear, my example was to express the extreme bounds of people with access to an income. That might be a kid on the Jersey shore with a credit card or a grand parent whom the income bringer is taking care of. Either way, there is a limited number of people that one income is actively taking care of and have access to that income. My original example was 3 billion persons with income and 15 billion persons spending the money. I think most adults can find 4 other people who spend money on their behalf by the age of 40.