3 ms·
> But it requires a strike like this almost every decade (or even more frequently) because as technology keeps evolving If I were a studio right now, I would b
by marklubi 3y ago
> But it requires a strike like this almost every decade (or even more frequently) because as technology keeps evolving
If I were a studio right now, I would be pouring *more* money into AI since people keep going on strike
- giraffe_lady 3y agoWhich is why the strike is necessary. The unions aren't against using technology, they are against using technology for the benefit of the studios at the expense of the workers. You're implying that not striking would prevent studios from doing that but it would not. This conflict is as old as industrialization at least and being nice about it has never prevented capital owners from exploiting workers.
- marklubi 3y agoApparently, my comment was completely lost on you. Here's an example that might make it more clear: Stagecoach drivers are mad that cars have been created, so they go on strike demanding more money. People interested in transportation spend more money on cars because the price for stagecoach drivers is going up. The strike is likely just accelerating investment in not being dependent on workers
- giraffe_lady 3y agoNo I understood you clearly. Please reconsider in light of that.
- marklubi 3y agoI’m not the one failing to reconsider positions on it. If there is technology available to reduce expenses (and in the case of a strike… uncertainty and variability), a business would be shortsighted to not consider or invest in other options.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoAnd a union isn't foolish for preventing them applying those "other options" to their own work in a way that makes that work more precarious. There's not a neat center position that can reconcile these things. Profit motives demand exploitation and human dignity demands resisting it. The balance shifts back and forth but at no point is everyone happy with the arrangement.