<p><pre><code>  &gt; The compulsion of government should not be used to make one
  &gt; individual responsible for providing for another. That is as
  &gt; morally abhorrent as slavery.
</code></pre>
Crikey - that escalated quickly.<p>Government is all about restricting what you can do (don&#x27;t steal, don&#x27;t kill, etc) under the banner of <i>providing</i> for other members of society (provision of safety, protection under the law, etc).<p>There&#x27;s a clear trend over the last several decades showing precisely the reallocation of wealth from working classes to middle &#x2F; upper class.  Here in AU we&#x27;ve just had a budget presented that, once again, provides welfare for middle &#x2F; upper, with an increased tax burden to the lower &#x2F; working.  It&#x27;s not as though this is a once-off event, or something that our friends in Europe or the US haven&#x27;t been noticing either.<p><pre><code>  &gt; If there isn&#x27;t, and I happen to have enough wealth to survive
  &gt; without a job, it shouldn&#x27;t be made my responsibility to provide
  &gt; for someone who cannot.
</code></pre>
Could you describe your thoughts on the contra situation there -- where there isn&#x27;t, and you <i>don&#x27;t</i> happen to have enough wealth to survive.<p>I&#x27;m guessing you&#x27;ve enjoyed some good fortune in regards the circumstances of your birth.<p><pre><code>  &gt; If a truck driver is concerned about the possibility of
  &gt; a shortage of jobs in thr future, then he should invest
  &gt; now to build his&#x2F;her wealth to prepare for that eventuality.
</code></pre>
I really don&#x27;t know if you&#x27;re trolling.  It&#x27;s not just about truck drivers, though they&#x27;re a good example because a) there&#x27;s lots of them, b) today the job they do is essential to western societies, c) once they start to be replaced by computers &#x2F; robots the changeover is going to be astonishingly fast, so you&#x27;re going to have an awful lot of them hit the job market very quickly, worldwide, and most importantly d) they&#x27;re not particularly well paid so they are unlikely to have a whole lot of wealth to invest.<p>If your answer to this kind of problem is &#x27;it sucks to be you&#x27;, then I hope you&#x27;re not in a position of contributing to public policy.<p><pre><code>  &gt; &gt; The &#x27;free market&#x27; is about to break, which is the point that
  &gt; &gt; Yanis (and many others) has made.
  &gt;
  &gt; There is less than zero evidence for this claim. It is dangerous
  &gt; fear-mongering.
</code></pre>
Did you read the OP?<p>What evidence would satisfy you?  Lots of announcements of huge layoffs across multiple industry sectors but almost no announcements of large job creations (well, lots of announcements, but subsequent analysis of these generally reveal they were hugely optimistic -  never delivering what they promised)?  Clear decline, almost universally, of the wage component of GDP?  A belief that an increase in the sophistication of technology and automation can increase the job market?