Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I can appreciate where you are coming from, but the fact is when people lose their jobs they can't exactly be counted on to cover equalization. With less and less people being employed, the employers will be required to pay for more and more people to not be employed by them. When you have real people working for you and you expand you are reinvesting into the economy. When you eliminate jobs but are still expanding you are investing solely in yourself, if you need to pay more for equalization so that you are able to maintain customers/revenue it seems to me like eventually you will be losing on that if more and more people are out of work.
I can see your point of paying someone to do nothing instead of using a machine, but if you choose to pay for that machine instead, under your suggestion you will still be paying people to do nothing.
I can understand everyone's concern with businesses choosing then to instead invest into foreign markets, but I really believe that this will eventually become a global issue and if we don't address the issue sooner rather than later, we could eventually find ourselves in a situation we can't get ourselves out of. If we get to a point where employers have the ability to dictate our quality of life or how much they need to give up to do so because we've lost all leverage due to the fact that they can operate without workers what will equalization really look like?
|
I don't think anyone disagrees that humans being replaced by machines is an issue that will need addressing. The answer has never been nor ever will be make automation more expensive.
If a person is doing a task that a machine can do cheaper they aren't doing work. let me ask you this: Why does an economy grow?