If they can’t find a way to pay a “living wage” they will just reduce their number of employees and make the remaining ones do more work. Or even worse, they’ll be replaced by some form of automation.
Replacing workers with automation is great, the problem is who benefits from the less work required by fewer people. Our current system, Capitalism, means that increased productivity comes at the workers expense and fewer workers see the benefit.
Theoretically if this ideal state keeps going for long enough it’d reach a point where the economy becomes so strong that working hours can be reduced to miniscule amounts, with enough money left over to pay for people who can’t work (due to mentally or physically not being capable of anything that a machine can’t already do).
This can obviously not happen when increased productivity is only used to increase profits.
Why even increase profits when the company already was doing fine before? Oh right, because all other companies do that too and you have to stay competitive. And they have to stay competitive with companies from other countries too, so as long as there’s not peace between all countries there also can’t be economical peace, ending the hunt for higher profits and leading humanity to a bright future.
Ah yes, they’ll go find work at all the other places … that are ALSO replacing workers with automation…
Are you seriously so small minded you cannot imagine how that will only leave the worst jobs for humans, and not give us all more free time or money without a serious restructure of the economy?
That happens anyways. You’re doing the equivalent of saying, “well people get murdered sometimes anyways, so why make it illegal?”
If you don’t even understand how regulations help people, maybe you should shut up and listen to more discussions before piping off about how people will be replaced by automation. They will anyways, fool!
Just because someone already sprained their ankle, doesn’t mean stabbing them doesn’t worsen their situation. But that’s literally your argument.
Automation is steadily becoming cheaper, and it will invariably replace human job X when it becomes less expensive than that human labor. Jacking up the cost of the human labor will obviously automation to cross that threshold MUCH FASTER.
If they can’t find a way to pay a “living wage” they will just reduce their number of employees and make the remaining ones do more work. Or even worse, they’ll be replaced by some form of automation.
Replacing workers with automation is great, the problem is who benefits from the less work required by fewer people. Our current system, Capitalism, means that increased productivity comes at the workers expense and fewer workers see the benefit.
Ideally the workers that aren’t needed anymore due to automation make / work at a new company, causing the economy to grow.
That isn’t sustainable and also won’t apply to all workers.
Theoretically if this ideal state keeps going for long enough it’d reach a point where the economy becomes so strong that working hours can be reduced to miniscule amounts, with enough money left over to pay for people who can’t work (due to mentally or physically not being capable of anything that a machine can’t already do).
This can obviously not happen when increased productivity is only used to increase profits.
Why even increase profits when the company already was doing fine before? Oh right, because all other companies do that too and you have to stay competitive. And they have to stay competitive with companies from other countries too, so as long as there’s not peace between all countries there also can’t be economical peace, ending the hunt for higher profits and leading humanity to a bright future.
We all know that this will never happen.
Ah yes, they’ll go find work at all the other places … that are ALSO replacing workers with automation…
Are you seriously so small minded you cannot imagine how that will only leave the worst jobs for humans, and not give us all more free time or money without a serious restructure of the economy?
By this I mean that they either make a new one or work at an existing one. When no existing one needs workers ideally new ones should be made.
And I didn’t use ideally for no reason. I am well aware that this currently does not work well, I was talking about the concept.
The counter to this is obvious. What’s stopping them doing that for workers on less than a living wage?
That happens anyways. You’re doing the equivalent of saying, “well people get murdered sometimes anyways, so why make it illegal?”
If you don’t even understand how regulations help people, maybe you should shut up and listen to more discussions before piping off about how people will be replaced by automation. They will anyways, fool!
Just because someone already sprained their ankle, doesn’t mean stabbing them doesn’t worsen their situation. But that’s literally your argument.
Automation is steadily becoming cheaper, and it will invariably replace human job X when it becomes less expensive than that human labor. Jacking up the cost of the human labor will obviously automation to cross that threshold MUCH FASTER.
You are the fool here.