No, we are talking about what the cause of existential risk is, which is not limited to people who have limited to no capital, need to work to live, and need their labor to have economic value to live. For something to be an existential risk you need basically everyone to die or be otherwise disempowered. Indeed, my whole point is that the dynamics of unemployment are very different from the dynamics of existential risk.
The bottom 55% of the world population own ~1% of capital, the bottom 88% own ~15%, and the bottom 99% own ~54%, which is a majority, but the top 1% are the millionaires (not even multi-millionaires or billionaires) likely owning wealth more vitally important to the economy than personal property and bank accounts, and empirically they seem to be doing fine dominating the economy already without neoclassical catechism about comparative advantage preventing them from doing that. However you massage the data it seems highly implausible that driving the value of labor (the non-capital factor of production) to zero wouldn’t be a global catastrophic risk and value drift risk/s-risk.
It appears to me you are still trying to talk about something basically completely different than the rest of this thread. Nobody is talking about whether driving the value of labor would be a catastrophic risk, I am saying it’s not an existential risk.
No, we are talking about what the cause of existential risk is, which is not limited to people who have limited to no capital, need to work to live, and need their labor to have economic value to live. For something to be an existential risk you need basically everyone to die or be otherwise disempowered. Indeed, my whole point is that the dynamics of unemployment are very different from the dynamics of existential risk.
Wiping out 99% of the world population is a global catastrophic risk, and likely a value drift risk and s-risk.
Talking about 99% of the population dying similarly requires talking about people who have capital. I don’t really see the relevance of this comment?
The bottom 55% of the world population own ~1% of capital, the bottom 88% own ~15%, and the bottom 99% own ~54%, which is a majority, but the top 1% are the millionaires (not even multi-millionaires or billionaires) likely owning wealth more vitally important to the economy than personal property and bank accounts, and empirically they seem to be doing fine dominating the economy already without neoclassical catechism about comparative advantage preventing them from doing that. However you massage the data it seems highly implausible that driving the value of labor (the non-capital factor of production) to zero wouldn’t be a global catastrophic risk and value drift risk/s-risk.
It appears to me you are still trying to talk about something basically completely different than the rest of this thread. Nobody is talking about whether driving the value of labor would be a catastrophic risk, I am saying it’s not an existential risk.