>
We take care of children, old people, disabled people, and others that can't take care of themselves. We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot.It's not just "low-skilled" people who will have trouble finding good employment. It's most people.
I like the idea of a society sharing the wealth from resources, cooperation, and technological advancement, and trying to ensure that everyone is lifted up by it.
I'd like to be careful of language around that, since I often hear comments from people who happen to be benefitting from the status quo (for now), talking down about people who aren't benefitting.
For example, some people hear about how "we" need to take care of others, and they seem to think it means asking "meritorious" them "for a favor, to benefit those less meritorious." But I think more appropriate is that the we is society, and that we need to revise our rules and conventions, because they're unfair, reward the wrong things, etc.
Right now, our rules and conventions seem to be under something like regulatory capture. So, exploiters benefit wildly disproportionately, and some of the rest of us (myself included, at times) effectively ride the coattails of that economic setup.
I propose that those of us who are currently making tech money would do well to speak up for those currently getting less a share of society. One reason is that it seems the right thing to do. Another reason is that, while we may be benefitting now, we might not later, and current rules&conventions are to listen to those with money, so we should speak up while we can.