this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
389 points (95.8% liked)
memes
9787 readers
2404 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
They can make competitive decisions that aren’t at the cost of society.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.