Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
To a point, sure. But “maximizing what you can make” doesn’t always mean maximizing salary. If they get a 20% raise and are out of a job in 5 years instead of 8 then they’ve significantly reduced their take home (for any long term employees, obviously). It really only benefits the transient workers or those already on their way out before cost/benefit balance dictates they get moved out anyway.
|
You’re entire position here is predicated on the idea that someone can guarantee a job for themselves. You could agree to an 8 year collective agreement but if your position is eliminated in year 5 of that deal you’re not coming out ahead.
Quote:
|
And whether it’s UBI or something different, there needs to be a solution, because “give people jobs just because” isn’t going to be one. AI could eliminate 90% of CRA jobs today. And that is not an exaggeration. The estimates are based mostly on governments moving at a glacial pace in regards to change.
|
Because you said it’s not an exaggeration can you provide anything to support your claim that 90% could be eliminated today? Out of 155,000 workers in the bargaining units affected by this dispute from what I’ve read only 120,000 are able to go on strike because the rest(well over 20%) are deemed essential. One would think that it’d be more sensible to eliminate those positions at this time if it were possible, if for no other reason than to put pressure on the rest of the unit to settle.
Maybe maximizing earnings for people who are actually working now would give them more disposable income and help create jobs now to help mitigate the effects of job losses from automation.