Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I'm of the opinion that if a job cannot be replaced by a machine without having another job available somewhere for that worker, it will only benefit that employer in the short term, until there are too many people out of work. If new jobs with equal or better pay can continually be created in other industries as a result of it, then that is a different scenario but I don't believe it to be the case, at least not indefinitely.
|
You are just Wrong here in an economic sense.
We have been losing jobs since the invention of Agriculture. Hunter and Gateherers used to spend 100% of their time trying to survive. Then you got Agriculture which gave people free time, then in that free time some people studied and your invented creating better tools which further increased efficiencies and eliminated jobs. These jobs are never all replaced, if they were all replaced. We went from spending every waking hour trying to survive to spending 8, 5 days a week with paid vacations. This was all made possible by efficiency that reduced the total number of required labour hours to keep society running.
If we can make a task that takes two people twice as efficient you have 3 extreme options.
1) The capitalist - the best person keeps the job and makes twice as much money
2) The communist - the best person keeps the job and makes the same and subsidizes the now unemployed person
3) The Iggy-Oi - the new tech is banned and we burn the spinning wheels and both people continue to work for the same pay.
It's obvious 3 is wrong, the issue becomes how do you distribute wealth and labour in a world where there is a surplus of wealth and anshortage of demand for labour. The answer is not fake jobs for everyone