4 ms·

As much as I support higher minimal wages, I can't help but conclude that this will only accelerate capital expendures in human-replacing automation

lisivka 10y ago
Automation is good. Eventually, it will lead to shorter working day (e.g. 6 or even 4 hours), shorter working week (e.g. 4 days, or even 3.5 days), to longer vacations, to better health care, earlier retirement, and so on.
- GFischer 10y ago
  I don't necessarily agree. That could be an outcome, but it would require policies or voluntary restraint to get there. At least in my country (Uruguay), the lower earning 8% have 30% of the children, placing a huge strain on society and services (I don't see robots replacing medical and social services anytime soon). So, to enable a sustainable society like you propose, something like a two children per couple rule should be enacted (hopefully nothing so harsh as the Chinese version).
- bbctol 10y ago
  If these benefits are demanded, either by government action or organized labor. If it's up to those who control corporations, they have no reason to cut hours and increase benefits out of the goodness of their own hearts; they'll just fire people.
- throwaway7767 10y ago
  It would be great if that were the result. But it remains to be seen. The requirement is that humans decide to change their economic system. If we don't do that (and human society is really good at staying on autopilot until problems have gotten truly severe), we'll just end up with a mostly-automated society where the robot owners have everything and everyone else lives in a ghetto.
  - GarvielLoken 10y ago
    See the Roman Empire economy for references. Massive farms powered by slaves, plebs living on minimum welfare in poverty. Rich aristocrats spending their time on propaganda and schemes.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      Horror story about society without automation. However, North beat South, so it is gone.

lisivka 10y ago

Automation is good. Eventually, it will lead to shorter working day (e.g. 6 or even 4 hours), shorter working week (e.g. 4 days, or even 3.5 days), to longer vacations, to better health care, earlier retirement, and so on.

GFischer 10y ago
I don't necessarily agree. That could be an outcome, but it would require policies or voluntary restraint to get there. At least in my country (Uruguay), the lower earning 8% have 30% of the children, placing a huge strain on society and services (I don't see robots replacing medical and social services anytime soon). So, to enable a sustainable society like you propose, something like a two children per couple rule should be enacted (hopefully nothing so harsh as the Chinese version).
bbctol 10y ago
If these benefits are demanded, either by government action or organized labor. If it's up to those who control corporations, they have no reason to cut hours and increase benefits out of the goodness of their own hearts; they'll just fire people.
throwaway7767 10y ago
It would be great if that were the result. But it remains to be seen. The requirement is that humans decide to change their economic system. If we don't do that (and human society is really good at staying on autopilot until problems have gotten truly severe), we'll just end up with a mostly-automated society where the robot owners have everything and everyone else lives in a ghetto.
- GarvielLoken 10y ago
  See the Roman Empire economy for references. Massive farms powered by slaves, plebs living on minimum welfare in poverty. Rich aristocrats spending their time on propaganda and schemes.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Horror story about society without automation. However, North beat South, so it is gone.