When you run a business, what is your job? It's to make as much money for the owner as is possible under the law. It's not to give people jobs and it's not to play nice with the community. It's just to make money.
So, unless you want to give businesses a pass to do anything even if it has adverse effects on the community, you're going to institute some legal controls, which is socialism.
While conservatives tell us that we need to support business because business=jobs, they aren't telling you the whole truth. Businesses hate giving people jobs. Labor is a necessary evil until it can be eliminated through increased efficiency and/or automation.
Think I'm wrong? Tell me how.
I think you're wrong in saying that legal controls (state regulation of business) is "Socialism". As I understand it, that can merely be described as State Capitalism, or State Socialism, if you prefer, which actually dodges the main pillar of Socialism: Worker's control over the workplace.
So, a criticism of terms, not of the actual content.
Watch how people use the term "socialism" in everyday practice here in America. Many view government regulation as evidence of socialist tendencies or even socialism itself.
The best run corporations understand that social responsibility is good for business. Consumers have learned that their purchasing power can enforce social responsibility. Misguided companies like VW are starting to really pay for their greedy, irresponsible policies.
Working to support state run programs does not motivate me at all. With the population age inversion socialism does not seem viable.
You're citing VW which is a case of abuse that came to light. Companies operate like thieves in the night and only exhibit a deviation from the primary directive, to amass profits, when they absolutely must, and then, usually, as minimally as possible.
Human employees are liabilities, which is why labor is anathema to capitalistic corporations. When an efficiency or automation or outsourcing to external slavish labor allows you to get rid of an employee, it's your duty to the company to do so.
You are only talking about efficiency for repetitive tasks and yes automation is efficient, but automation can't create on its own. You need people to do that. Creative people will always be employable and companies will always need creative people.
So the few creative people will have to support the many and provide them with the income to keep the economy going?
To an extent we are headed toward a "technocracy" yes. Automation is monitored and maintained by humans typically. Amazon did not get very far with it's drone delivery service so far, but if they do make it work...that will start to impact parcel delivery but generate a whole new industry.
If we are intentionally less efficient to "support" the masses, how will we compete in markets?
Every invention that takes off creates SOME new jobs. Sometimes more jobs but more often than not less, because often the reason for adopting the new technology is that it is more efficient.
By analogy, it's like entropy. While here and there organization increases, the overall trend is toward disorganization.
Think of the damage done by Craiglist. Who places a classified ad in newspapers anymore? Craigslist is, along with the Internet, killing off newspaper jobs. And yet, I believe it's run by fewer then 30 people.
It's not long term damage. It frees up more people to be creative. It redirects to higher levels. The goal is a more efficient, highly educated society that has more free time than ever. One farmer can feed 10,000. That's not a bad thing unless you wanna pick apples all day.
Correction. Craiglist is operated by about 40 people. It processes an astonishing number of ads (about 80,000,000/month).
"Amazon did not get very far with it's drone delivery service so far, but if they do make it work."
When I first read about the Amazon Drone Delivery, I laughed myself right out of my chair. The boys over there must have been really high when they came up with that one. The logistics and new infrastructure required for that would exceed by many multiples the current cost of delivering their products.
Not every cool idea is practical.
Socialism, as most see it, refers more to individuals all sharing the resources, so all have an equal share, and no one owns more than another.
A law, to limit harm to others, is not really the same thing as saying you have to give away some of your stuff so everyone has the same amount.
You are conflating the two concepts as if they are the same.
If you consider it "socialism", essentially, to have a government, OK, sure...but, its not really using the term in a meaningful way.
You are simply saying the word government, and the word socialism, are synonyms.