530
Senate report says AI will take 97M US jobs in the next 10 years, but those numbers come from ChatGPT
(www.theregister.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
530 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
75792 readers
2480 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Expert here. That's a bad idea. Example: a small law firm, 10 employees including owners/partners/I don't care how they're organized. They have 3 bank accounts: their payroll account, their operating fund (where all their nonpayroll expenditures are made) and their client liability account. None of the money in that account is actually theirs, they just hold it while waiting for clients to cash their settlement checks.
Proportionally, at least at the firm I've consulted with, their client liability account is several orders of magnitude larger than either of the other accounts. Technically the money isn't theirs, they are just custodians, and the interest from that account is their bar association dues.
My point is, certain asset caps may look appropriate for one industry and simultaneously be absolutely disruptive to others.
As a more general principle, don't build nitpicky implementation detail into a strategy document. That's how you get brainfarts like the 3/5 compromise.
What is it you're an expert of, here? Game theory? Or do you mean you're a lawyer?
If you're a lawyer, you are not an expert on formulating a society. We've let lawyers run things for a long time and look at where it's gotten us.
The system needs to promote positive, human centric outcomes. Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn't fundamentally a positive outcome? Perhaps that idea needs to be reworked as a part of the oncoming changes?
In other words, anyone dealing with a certain threshold of wealth needs to hire human beings in order to raise their cap. I like this idea a lot actually. The bigger the clients, the more they have to pay if they want legal representation. For billionaires, legal representation would cost an absolute fortune and provide income to thousands of people.
Honestly I haven't thought of this pattern but the more I think about it, the better it seems.
let's remove the ability of people to sue for damages when they're injured, that's ALSO a positive societal goal.
where do you think that money came from?
Preferably, yes. Ideally, we are all insured by a single payer system and in the case of an accident, people are compensated via that insurance.
No legal bank account needed.
Next point?
oh, you want to argue. accidents are a very small subset of legal injuries
In that case, what would you believe to be an appropriate solution for your industry? I would like your viewpoint, it might refine my concept a bit further*.
*My approach is assuming a scenario that can be broadly be described as 'What if FDR failed to save capitalism?', or a total breakdown of the economic reality we know. That is the sort of thing that the Framers of America did when they made the Constitution. They formalized rules on preventing absolute political power, so I am looking for something similar regarding economic gaps.
I've thought a good one would be to have all publicly traded business allocate 15% equity to employees, and require a seat on the board for an employee elected representative. Employees should be allowed to vote to sell off a certain amount every quarter, and any stock buybacks would go into the employee pool until the 15% is reached again.
I have a feeling that this is different from Beeg's concern about client assets, but more about employee influence over the company? The idea of an equity limit might be a good addition to the Universal Ranked Income concept that I have cobbled together. Thank you. :)
In any case, my notes has two things about my own take:
1: Employees can vote for whether someone can obtain and retain their leadership position within their chapter and for higher rungs of the organization. Also, the pay grade of those leaders. Employees who are fired or retired from the company will receive 1:1 retirement pay over time, equal to the days and pay grade that they worked at the company, and can vote on any position of the company or those it has merged with. This essentially means that legacy employees can determine the leadership of the company, and cannot be made to 'go away' in a political sense.
2: Stocks when sold, have two components. The first is that they pay an amount over a fixed time, that is more than what they were paid for. It cannot be be sold nor traded, until it has been exhausted of this payback value. When exhausted of value, the share can now be traded to another individual for money, or returned to the company for the value it was bought at. The company cannot refuse the return, nor offer an increased price. A share returned to the company can be reissued, which allows it to start paying the fixed value again. Secondly, people who hold a share can vote for company leadership*. People within leadership positions at the company cannot own stocks from their own organization.
By requiring stocks to be held for a certain time before they can be traded, it makes it harder for stockholders to hoard and dispose of stocks when convenient. The gradual payout is a reward to people who buy stocks from the company. Presumably, the inability of stocks to have guaranteed value when they become tradeable will promote their return to the company.
*It is assumed that we are operating within an economic system, where there are absolute wealth and asset caps. There is only so many shares a person can possess, and holding shares can prevent someone from owning a yacht or bigger house - they have to lose the shares to make room within the cap for things they enjoy. This helps limit the influence of individual stock holders.
There's a few ways to account for it. i mean, if you are doing Net Assets (Assets-Liability), that's just Equity and having a limit on the total Equity a business is able to carry at specific sizes feels like it's incentivizing the wrong things.
It's kind of interesting to see the changes in investment rates that happened when the tax rate dropped from 90% on anything over a million in annual income. People would essentially buy losses (invest in businesses that were struggling) in order to keep from having to pay the government more. So struggling businesses got a little more capital to survive. Simply changing the top personal/corp income tax rate to something draconian at some arbitrarily high amount can have transformative effects on a society. that's where i'd start.