Topic: CBDCs are created for unemployment purpose - page 4. (Read 729 times)

If you look at countries with no freedom you should understand how far the government will go to restrict your control on life. Why would they do anything different with CBDCs? They would not. If the people are not in charge then a small group of government is. This is why a CBDC must always be considered a potential tool of the government. Take a look at China, with their control over people, their money and their privacy. CBDC's are exactly the type of tool created to compliment such a tyranny.

In other words, if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck then it is probably a duck. 

I agree with you that they will not sacrifice part of their control in exchange for obtaining new jobs for the unemployed. The issue is deeper than it appears on the surface, and these reasons are also what makes the sweep of blockchain technology into new fields limited.
On the other hand, technology is able to provide profitable and productive opportunities for everyone by relying on the development of self-paced skills and creativity in development, which will provide them with a good experience and thus more opportunities to get a good job or start their own project.

I think this would not be allowed to happen even in the far or near future because the government cannot afford to let traditional banking or monetary systems out of their hands; they still want that power to remain in their hands in order to allow them to do whatever they please at any time just like they have been doing.

Displace fiat and traditional banking you mean? What is the different from CBDC and the normal fait system ?
The traditional means of banking has being moved into digital before the launch and introduction of CBDC, which one can make their transactions and execute it without even working straight to the bank everything can be done only, likewise the CBDC they need make use of internet in other for them to be able to complete a single transaction, so how will that make any much of a difference and how will people divert from using their normal banking service which they understand much more better and start using CBDC or is their any form of low to zero fee tolerant for those who are to make use of CBDC

CBDCS can replace traditional fiat but it is not happening anytime soon. Most economies mostly in developing areas still rely heavily on fiat which comes from the fact that they lack the basic infrastructure that promotes digitalization. Some persons have never used the ATM or any online bank transactions. Traditional banks will still be here for decades to meet the needs of many people. Modern technology doesn't only create unemployment it also creates new jobs. People have always turned against new technologies for fear of losing their jobs because they are unaware that new technologies come with new jobs and opportunities. There was this fear that AI would make many people jobless but the technology is opening bigger and better job opportunities. I am sure the government will take preemptive actions before making traditional banks obsolete to avoid mass retrenchment.

That's right. Because it cannot be denied that a bank, for example in one country, does have many branches. What is certain will require employees in each of these branches. But even so, as far as I know the jobs created by banking are very small/little. Because even though there are quite a lot of branches, the number of people who need work (aka unemployed) is much greater. So, in my personal opinion, banking cannot be said to open up many job opportunities. Even from my personal experience, when I look at job vacancies in my country via the web, I never see job vacancies in banks. So I think it is quite clear that banking does not make a big contribution in creating jobs.

And regarding banks and their employees who always pay taxes. This is very normal, because when living in a country that has a taxation system, everyone is also obliged to pay taxes.

I think traditional banking will remain superior to CBDC. Because even though CBDC was created to advance digital-based financial systems, if humanity still really needs fiat currency in physical form like now, then traditional banking will definitely still exist and will not be pushed aside by CBDC. .

Because when you think about it, why do CBDC and traditional banking have to compete. Even though both are owned by the government of the same country. However, the difference is only in the running system, and in terms of objectives, it will definitely remain the same. So basically why do traditional banking and CBDC compete with each other?

I've known Russians for the propaganda, and of course, they have the right to their vision and plans but that doesn't necessarily mean what the whole world will share in these views and plans.

One of the reasons why the US is careful in pursuing further their CBDC is the effect on banks and the earnings of other financial institutions and advisers, this could affect jobs and the economy. I see no how CBDC could employ as much as several banks could employ, and by virtue, it's not going to be a plus to society. The CBDC is still centrally controlled, it has no serious reason for the government to outweigh it over banks, and besides, banks are even saddled with more responsibility that can't be covered by the CBDC.

If at all in the future anything changes because of blockchain technology, banks will rather transition to blockchain operations under their central banks' CBDC but their service remains.

I don't think the banks would be totally displaced by CBDCs. There are probably a number of banking services that remain. Even with CBDCs becoming the mainstream currency, people would still go to the banks for all kinds of loans, for example, or to avail wealth management services, and so on.

Also, the operation of CBDCs entail employment as well. There will certainly be all kinds of staff to be hired to make sure it runs smoothly 24/7.

CBDC is one aspect of financial sector that is being explored. Though, It is still under testing and development and I don't think there's any country that has a fully working CBDC enabled banking system, so it might take a while for this to happen, maybe in a decade. But if it is fully developed and the government makes it compulsory for the traditional fiats to be replaced by CBDC, then it would bring an end to an era and put many persons in the banking sector out of work.

Yes. It is true. Many people will be jobless because of this. No more counting paper money, so there's really not much of a necessity for a bank clerk too. But there will still be some that will be left for customer support although I don't really like the idea of that. It's not different from what they are doing with AI, many people will also lose their jobs once they perfected this kind of technology.

There are already fewer workers in the bank, what more if they will implement the use of CBDC widely in one country? Maybe all we will see is the receptionist and the FAQ holder to answer our queries, worse it is also computerized. The pandemic did change a lot of the perspective of the people. They are trying to create projects that won't need interaction to protect the health of the people but we are also in the phase of being unsociable.

At any point banks never gets displaced or something takes over it. Maybe the system followed might change. As CBDC is getting popular, we might see the usage in banking. Banks were the backbone to every country's economy development. We can see the country's economy going down with countries where more banks have gone into bankruptcy. Even now banks were slowly getting into all sort of businesses. This will widen the service availed through banks creating more opportunities. We should also understand CBDC were just a hype given to the traditional fiat so to stop people falling for the goodness of bitcoin.

It will take time to make the thing called unemployment for banks due to CBDC to happen.  Since the future is set for automation and virtual activities, it is inevitable that all industries will be susceptible to unemployment but I think we should not worry about that, solutions for unemployment will present themselves when the time this kind of unemployment starts to promulgate.

Aside from that banks do not function on money transfers alone, they also function as safe stash for important documents and items, aside from that they are also involved in different kinds of investment so I do not think that banks will lose their function once CBDC becomes popular.

I’ve tried visiting the provided link severally but, am met with a 404 error each time and as such, I couldn’t get the full story.

Still, I don’t see any much difference in having the CBDC functional from what we’ve got here with the mobile banking. CBDC doesn’t have much difference from what we already have in mobile banking.
It’s technically all fiat just in different forms and it’s going to need maintenance from time to time and some one to manage the proceedings.

I wouldn’t act like I know much about CBDC but, in many ways, people remain more comfortable with what they are can hold someone responsible and accountable for.

By the way, the article's no longer up.

How so though? As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong) CBDCs are nothing but glorified fiat sold as "cryptocurrencies" to the public that's unaware of what crypto really is. If they are to introduce a new economy completely separate from the fiat system that we have right now then sure this might work, but as it's pegged to fiat's value I don't think it's going to be the case. At best it's only going to be another way for you to digitally pay stuff on the go. Even worse, they could use these to furthe oligarchy onto a different plane, and perhaps even contaminate the cryptocurrency world since again, it's expected that CBDC's could be used interoperably with cryptocurrency.

Are CBDCs not just another type of fiat money that is governed by the government and run by the established banking system? What is this lawmaker actually trying to say when he makes this statement? I'm confused.
  
Does he really want the central banks to take over and eliminate the private banking system in favour of CBDCs? If that's the case, the unemployment rate there might rise, which would be bad for the economy and something the government would never want to accept for the future of the nation.

CBDCs can operate with less workers and that means unemployment or reduced in employment. In my country, there are people going to bank daily and the bank have numerous workers for that. If everything is CBDC, there will be decrease in the number of workers.

CBDCs are very centralized, hackers will only lose if they try to do anything.


This is what everyone is thinking, but cryptocurrencies are different from fiat while CBDCs are the same as fiat which will make people not to regard to it as cryptocurrencies, they are nothing but just fiat.

The most consistent fear factor of CBDC currently is hackers. We can't be bothered about bank charges and be bothered about hackers getting a hold of our account and clearing all our funds.
CBDC remains deficient in solving the unemployment problems as it is just to serve as a digital equivalent of whatever amount of money one has in their bank account name.
I believe it was created simply to compete with cryptocurrencies in stability and consistency of service. Nothing else

This makes no sense at all if you ask me. Banking world definitely employs a lot of people there is no question there, but just because it moves from fiat to CBDC doesn't mean that they will not need any workers. First of all they will keep needing workers for fiat because fiat is not going anywhere, we are not going to move to CBDC and suddenly stop using fiat. Secondly, just as we use fiat today, we are going to end up with CBDC banks as well, which will employ a lot of people too. So its not going to be an issue if you ask me. Unemployment is an issue for sure, but its not going to be because of CBDC, its just that tech is evolving and we are producing more than we can buy.

So of what difference does it makes ?  In any ways they are both controlled by the government and that makes no difference. The cbdc replacing traditional banking system will be very hard to actualize as adoption will be hampered by trust issues, but if they are allowed to work as an integral part of the traditional banking system coexisting with different functions for digital currency and fiat money it can only but increase employment is the system other than pushing for a replacement.

The bank always have it own roles to be played,  I doubt in time coming if CBDC can complete take over the bank. The CBDC work with the bank and it can be on is own. The bank and CBDC are managed by the same source,  the bank is something that has been their long time before now  and I can't imagine it will get to a time that it won't be existing,  as far as the government exist the bank will still exist because the government benefits from in it . Even if the CBDC succeed in getting more innovations it can play all the roles of the bank .