3 ms·

Can we replace you with a robot so I never have to read such an ignorant, inhumane comment again? Why don't we try treating low wage workers like their valuable

Can we replace you with a robot so I never have to read such an ignorant, inhumane comment again? Why don't we try treating low wage workers like their valuable, and give them more credit when they do a good job instead of their CEO's getting the big bonuses? You'd be amazed what people are capable of when treated right. If you still get losers smashing up boxes, fire them. By that point there will be a line of applicants waiting to do a better job, and the irresponsible worker can go and figure out why he or she got fired and do better next crack at it. So sick of the endless chatter of this "automation utopia" here. It doesn't exist, it's not going to exist likely for hundreds of years, so lets turn the blind eye while the automaters rake in the profits and wages continue to stagnate for the next 40 years like they have the previous 40.

post-it 10y ago
Why do you want people to have to work? A job automated is a person that doesn't need to work.
- nercht12 10y ago
  We live in a capitalistic system (surprise!) - You don't work, you don't eat. So if all tasks are automated, then only big companies make money and everyone else starves. But the big biz will save themselves by going overseas until they've harvested that money. In the end, it all doesn't matter anyways - "the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer."
  - AskHeaven 10y ago
    Isn't that the duty of the tax system and the government? Just because the system is pretty broken down in its current state, in the US, doesn't mean it cannot work. Some european countries are doing pretty well. I think that protectionist policies are a step backwards, we should come up with new solutions to our new problems instead of looking at the past and trying to selectively apply the nice things in the past.
- treehau5 10y ago
  It has nothing to do with me wanting people to work, but with people wanting to work. Believe it or not, some people want to work. Many are raised on the principle of you need to work to eat, and will continue to raise their kids in this fashion for the unforeseeable future. Call it what you want, it is just the way some people live their life and find worth. We have to stop and ask ourselves why on earth would we want to even automate all work? It always goes down some utilitarian route, and I am saddened to see that this is the only ethical framework that has room in modern, capitalistic society. > A job automated is a person that doesn't need to work. False. A job automated is a person that a company doesn't need a worker for. There is a difference, in that now that person doesn't get paid. Company makes more money. This will be the situation until we reach the fabled "automation utopia" where all the essentials are taken care of such as food, shelter, water, travel, medicine, law, governance, and humans are left to frolic around to and fro. Until then, there will be hundreds of years of human suffering. Let's stop this endless pursuit to automate which is driven largely by profit, and focus our attention on solving human suffering. We have better things to be doing with our time than to figure out how to replace everyone's job.
AskHeaven 10y ago
I don't really understand this 'get the credit' logic. Firstly, CEOs aren't getting the lion's share of the profits - the shareholders are. Secondly, if you or the shareholders think that replacing their CEO would benefit them, they should and would have done that already. The reality is that some jobs are easier to do and hence more replaceable, while others are not. Just look at how Harvard's endowment is doing after they bowed down to political pressure and replaced their highly-paid management. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-23/harvard-does-a-trade-you-should-never-make https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-23/harvard-d...

post-it 10y ago

Why do you want people to have to work? A job automated is a person that doesn't need to work.

nercht12 10y ago
We live in a capitalistic system (surprise!) - You don't work, you don't eat. So if all tasks are automated, then only big companies make money and everyone else starves. But the big biz will save themselves by going overseas until they've harvested that money. In the end, it all doesn't matter anyways - "the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer."
- AskHeaven 10y ago
  Isn't that the duty of the tax system and the government? Just because the system is pretty broken down in its current state, in the US, doesn't mean it cannot work. Some european countries are doing pretty well. I think that protectionist policies are a step backwards, we should come up with new solutions to our new problems instead of looking at the past and trying to selectively apply the nice things in the past.
treehau5 10y ago
It has nothing to do with me wanting people to work, but with people wanting to work. Believe it or not, some people want to work. Many are raised on the principle of you need to work to eat, and will continue to raise their kids in this fashion for the unforeseeable future. Call it what you want, it is just the way some people live their life and find worth. We have to stop and ask ourselves why on earth would we want to even automate all work? It always goes down some utilitarian route, and I am saddened to see that this is the only ethical framework that has room in modern, capitalistic society. > A job automated is a person that doesn't need to work. False. A job automated is a person that a company doesn't need a worker for. There is a difference, in that now that person doesn't get paid. Company makes more money. This will be the situation until we reach the fabled "automation utopia" where all the essentials are taken care of such as food, shelter, water, travel, medicine, law, governance, and humans are left to frolic around to and fro. Until then, there will be hundreds of years of human suffering. Let's stop this endless pursuit to automate which is driven largely by profit, and focus our attention on solving human suffering. We have better things to be doing with our time than to figure out how to replace everyone's job.

AskHeaven 10y ago

I don't really understand this 'get the credit' logic. Firstly, CEOs aren't getting the lion's share of the profits - the shareholders are. Secondly, if you or the shareholders think that replacing their CEO would benefit them, they should and would have done that already. The reality is that some jobs are easier to do and hence more replaceable, while others are not. Just look at how Harvard's endowment is doing after they bowed down to political pressure and replaced their highly-paid management. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-23/harvard-does-a-trade-you-should-never-make https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-23/harvard-d...