Philanthropic Blues

How do you dispense capital in an assessment of output system, when technology could potentially displace a high percentage of all levels of live careers? We may perhaps see a continually escalating unemployment rate that is technology displaced employment. Time to volte-face the formula of how this ever increasing number of unemployed gets paid- has come faster then anything else. Some of these jobs may not be exceptionally remunerating, especially physical unskilled toil, but then even existing vocations are seeing a latent for disarticulation not far into the future for the same reason, technology.[/b]

An ambience for revolution exists now and is only showing growing turbulence for change and autonomy as the rest of the world gets connected to reality and global realities converge to a singular entity. It would be better lead by negotiated formulas toward a kinder and more impartial global sharing of resources. Need, not wealth is a morality that we are slowly maturing toward. That needs to be reflected in all strategic planning.

The simple and aesthetic answer to this question is that when the uber rich are induced either voluntarily or involuntarily to spend to the benefit of the poor i.e in fact being induced to improve the quality of life of the society in which they participate, and thus however minimally is improving the quality of their own life. To achieve more it would be most effective for them to contribute more to the welfare of the poor than is required by coercion.

Should they succeed in avoiding coercion to contribute to the welfare of the poor, and choose not otherwise make such a contribution, they would not improve their own wellbeing as the bulk of their wealth would not be exercised to benefit anyone as the wealth exceeds that which can be exercised in the direct improvement of an individuals life to any degree that can be measured.

If the wealthy universally exercised their wealth in improving the welfare of every member of their society, not just their immediate community, they would live in increasing aesthetic circumstances and would increasing not be dependent on the restrictions on their lifestyle caused by the need to secure their seasonal safety and securing their wealth, and detractions from the quality of life of all.

 

[Simran Rai]

This article thoughtfully raises the pressing concern of how society will redistribute capital in a future where automation and artificial intelligence displace large portions of the global workforce. As technology rapidly replaces not only unskilled labor but also white-collar professions, the traditional equation of “employment equals income” begins to collapse. The discussion rightly questions the sustainability of an economy that ties livelihood to employment when employment itself is becoming increasingly scarce due to technological progress.


The suggestion to shift towards a need-based, rather than wealth-based, economic model is both timely and morally resonant. Encouraging the ultra-wealthy to contribute more meaningfully—voluntarily rather than through coercion—could foster a healthier, more equitable society where resources are allocated to raise the quality of life for all. If such contributions are made, not only would societal well-being increase, but the affluent themselves would benefit from safer, more harmonious environments.


The argument ultimately champions a future where capital is not hoarded, but circulated purposefully. Redistribution, when framed as mutual benefit rather than forced obligation, can create systems where the human value of every individual is honored, even in a world no longer dependent on their labor. This ethical shift in strategy could become essential for survival and dignity in a post-labor economy.​