Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the statement about the reduction in work day really meant was, the company would be able to give you more work because you'd be able to get it done quicker.
Nobody I knew thought they'd be putting in 20 or 30 hours a week for the same pay.
This idea of less work and more free time through computers is particularly topical now with the talks of guaranteed income. There are many that see the advances in AI and robots will make a large chunk of the workforce obsolete. So their conclusion is that we will simply get paid just for existing. It's a silly and naive point of view, but one that is gaining traction.
There is no way corporations will pump out products and services while people do nothing to contribute.
Why should we earn money for doing nothing? The idea that somehow the producers would invest in better technology and the better efficiency would translate into more money for the workers is silly. We are paid for what we produce.
My company recently bought a robot that allows a single person to do the work that once needed two men. Does that mean that the one employee should get paid double? The robot wasn't free and the employee isn't doing more work. Why should he get paid more?
We should do a thread on that so you can see that the worker also made it possible for that robot to be bought and so the profits should be shared accordingly.
All the statement about the reduction in work day really meant was, the company would be able to give you more work because you'd be able to get it done quicker.
Nobody I knew thought they'd be putting in 20 or 30 hours a week for the same pay.
I distinctly remember all the hysteria when computers were expected to go public in the form of business systems run on huge mainframe computers. I actually programmed a few of them myself over the years. But I wonder how many recall the promises and expectations of how they would improve life. It was all over the news that computers would do in minutes what it took many people days to do. It was said that computers would one day run manufacturing processes and do our work for us in that way. Oh gosh we would all be working part-time jobs and earning the same incomes we were earning with full time jobs. We would have lots of leisure time to go shopping and boost the economy. Our lifestyles would benefit beyond imagination with abundant leisure time and abundant incomes.
Remember?
Is that what happened, or did business find ways to keep us all earning the same or less, work harder and more, and take all those nice profits for themselves to spend buying politicians and then store the rest offshore in foreign, untaxed bank accounts?
And now we are supposed to believe that if only we would cut business taxes and let them move manufacturing overseas for cheap labor that the savings and profits will “trickle down†to us in the form of lower prices and more employment. How gullible are we?
Nothing wrong with computers.
Just the politicians that allowed computing jobs to be outsourced
When the AI/robotics revolution is complete, there may be nothing for the vast majority of us to do to earn money. At that point, what else can we do but demand money for nothing?
Hey, workers made it all possible. If you or anyone cares to honestly and civilly discuss this without being snarky (that's not for you, but for a few others here) and with an interest in exploring this, we could get into it.
This idea of less work and more free time through computers is particularly topical now with the talks of guaranteed income. There are many that see the advances in AI and robots will make a large chunk of the workforce obsolete. So their conclusion is that we will simply get paid just for existing. It's a silly and naive point of view, but one that is gaining traction.
There is no way corporations will pump out products and services while people do nothing to contribute.
Well don't look at it as though the only scenario would be to do nothing and get paid. How about being paid 2 or 3 times what you're now earning for half or a third as much time working? Same difference. One is more reasonable and one is ridiculous and it's all how you look at it.
This idea of less work and more free time through computers is particularly topical now with the talks of guaranteed income. There are many that see the advances in AI and robots will make a large chunk of the workforce obsolete. So their conclusion is that we will simply get paid just for existing. It's a silly and naive point of view, but one that is gaining traction.
There is no way corporations will pump out products and services while people do nothing to contribute.
I do think we've advanced so much since the initial days of computers that automation will naturally l.ead to a reduction in jobs. But the biggest risk people face isn't that right now, it's those taking jobs with HB-1 visas and jobs that are sent offshore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kode
But that was the propaganda of the day.
I remember the talk being 'your work day will be cut in half', but nobody I knew envisioned packing up at noon to go home. We figured if it lessened our workload, we'd be getting more work to fill in the remaining hours.
We should do a thread on that so you can see that the worker also made it possible for that robot to be bought and so the profits should be shared accordingly.
Sure, the employee did make it possible to purchase the robot, as did many other employees. My company gives stock to each employee yearly, so we are all shareholders. In that sense, profits are shared. But it would be unrealistic to expect that the employee should just get paid more just because we bought a robot. He didn't make it possible all by himself. It was the group effort of my company which allowed us to have the funds available to make such an expensive purchase.
I remember the talk being 'your work day will be cut in half', but nobody I knew envisioned packing up at noon to go home. We figured if it lessened our workload, we'd be getting more work to fill in the remaining hours.
Sure, but the propaganda of the day was that you would either have much more leisure time or you would have lots more income. IOW the advantages of computerization would not only benefit the businessman, but he would "share" it with the workers too. And the advantages of computers do benefit whomever the laws provide for the benefits. Right now all the benefits go to the top.
I'll say it for the 1 millionth time. Automation creates jobs not destroy them. I mean I have gone into depth countless times but people refuse to listen. People already have their minds made up when it comes to computers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
