5 ms·

Happened to father-in-law. Worked at a printing company. Before used older machinery which needed more manual operations, more fixing and supervising. Company b

by rdtsc 10y ago

Happened to father-in-law. Worked at a printing company. Before used older machinery which needed more manual operations, more fixing and supervising. Company bought a new German printer, it was automated and more advanced. Required only a fraction of people from before to run it. Owners tried not to be evil and kept a lot of employees. People who used to do more intense manual work, were now standing around watching the new marvelous German-engineered printer do its magic. Some of the positions were almost made up just give workers a chance to stay longer. At some point they offered people money to quit. Some took that option, including father-in-law. Not sure what happened to others. Basic income is a good idea. I am behind it. But people like my father-in-law would be against taking it. They'd need to do some work, to feel like they are useful and they are earning a paycheck. I think the idea has to be promoted carefully so it doesn't seem like a handout or redistribution of wealth. Not exactly sure what the solution would look like.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Why not just pay people to do what they were doing before? You still have to paint, but you do it for free for whoever wants it. Since you're doing it by hand, and can take as long as you need, you can do more personal work, for people you care about. Paint a church. Paint a local business. Have a skeleton organization that basically just works as a dispatcher and collector of time sheets. You still only get paid for work done.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Could, be yeah. They tried some of that there and it worked for a bit. I think the company probably found it unsustainable and first they offered a lump sum for people to quit, then they might lay people off. At some point the idea is that companies who automate and don't keep the people because, well that's what makes them more money, will win or out-compete those who don't. Maybe basic income can be used to incentivize people to learn more -- learn to program, social help (learn to help others, provide care for elderly), learn to manage and maintain robots, maybe find a way to strengthen the community (we'll pay you, but if you help build or maintain the local school you get paid more...?)

by rdtsc 10y ago

erikpukinskis 10y ago

Why not just pay people to do what they were doing before? You still have to paint, but you do it for free for whoever wants it. Since you're doing it by hand, and can take as long as you need, you can do more personal work, for people you care about. Paint a church. Paint a local business. Have a skeleton organization that basically just works as a dispatcher and collector of time sheets. You still only get paid for work done.

rdtsc 10y ago
Could, be yeah. They tried some of that there and it worked for a bit. I think the company probably found it unsustainable and first they offered a lump sum for people to quit, then they might lay people off. At some point the idea is that companies who automate and don't keep the people because, well that's what makes them more money, will win or out-compete those who don't. Maybe basic income can be used to incentivize people to learn more -- learn to program, social help (learn to help others, provide care for elderly), learn to manage and maintain robots, maybe find a way to strengthen the community (we'll pay you, but if you help build or maintain the local school you get paid more...?)