3 ms·
I'm not entirely for this and I pinged the author about clarifying that exact point. But it seems his hypothesis is that the contracts mostly have wage increase
by pj_mukh 11y ago
I'm not entirely for this and I pinged the author about clarifying that exact point. But it seems his hypothesis is that the contracts mostly have wage increases which long term will force the companies to invest in productivity-boosting technology to scale instead of just getting more labour.
- jdmichal 11y agoI'm even more confused now. The general point of a basic income AFAIK is to permit everyone to live somewhere and eat regardless of their employment status. Boosting unions and forcing companies to scale existing labor rather than invest in new labor, and thus increasing the number of people with no income, sounds like movement in the exact opposite direction.
- pj_mukh 11y ago"scale existing labor rather than invest in new labor, and thus increasing the number of people with no income, sounds like movement in the exact opposite direction." Sorry, this was never suggested? "Scaling" existing labour is the same as investing in new labor, is it not? Or do you mean new "types" of labour? Either way, most new productivity boosters allow you to do more with the same labour force. Ideally. So you let the labour force collectively bargain higher wages so the company is forced to invest in new technology (exp(n) boost) to scale their operations instead of increasing the size of the workforce (n boost).
- wmf 11y agoBut what if companies overreact and develop technology that lets them employ, say, half as many people as they do currently? Then some people would have cushy union jobs and even more people would be unemployed?