• Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    No strong disagree.

    If that was the case we wouldn’t ever have economic growth. Businesses need to be competitive and make competitive decisions.

    If two people are out of work and one the same then so be it, the system needs to pick them up in a different way. Automation and competition is good.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Society can be better at dealing with competition.

        How much do you think a farm labourer should be paid out of curiosity? Half of what has been saved in wages? That’s a hell of a lot of money.

        • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You’re damn right it is. The exact math isn’t important for our conversation, but the point is that the savings gained through automation should be shared with the workers.

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            No the saving should be divided with society.

            If anyone should be getting the gains of that automation it’s the people that built it and improved output per person. Not the people that in no way contributed anything at all towards progress.

            • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I don’t disagree, but workers are a part of society too and if automation increases the productivity of the workers, they should get more too.

              • Wanderer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                UBI, lower taxes, free public transport, free education.

                Many manys I would agree with that. But what you suggest is too difficult and too distorting of the market.

                Say a job get improved because the new version of Microsoft Office is 5% better but no one gets laid off. You can’t even begin to work out things like that.