Layman here. Why does r/badeconomics hate the horse argument?

Humans are not bred for a purpose. Our lives are their own purpose, and we bring value to other people's lives in unique ways that are not easily replicable by machines

I know lots of kids who were born to take care of their families, to carry out other purposes.

Maybe that's what people in America think, but very much so in other parts of the world kids are born for the work they can do.

I don't see how your theory holds.

Theres lots of core assumptions there that do not fit with how you would expect a market to deal with human beings.

A market will ideally allocate things efficiently, and if that means being poor and unable to partake in the market leaves you with humanly degrading options, then the market will leave you with that.

DO note - my objection here is not to be seen as support of Humans as horses argument.

Its an objection to the statement

Humans are not bred for a purpose. Our lives are their own purpose, and we bring value to other people's lives in unique ways that are not easily replicable by machines.

in that this is too naive.

As people even in r/badeconomics have pointed out, even with automation jobs get replaced by lower paying, burger flipping style jobs - which is still benign.


And from real world examples which I have personally seen - humans are too much of a bother to deal with, even in cheap third world conditions. Firms would prefer automation systems over people at nearly every juncture.

/r/badeconomics Thread Parent