5 ms·

Yes banks employ less people. In my country there are now account managers handling hundreds of clients virtually. Most of the local managers got fired. I find

Yes banks employ less people. In my country there are now account managers handling hundreds of clients virtually. Most of the local managers got fired. I find it easy to say from our privileged position that "tech might replace workers but it'll be fine". Even if all the replaced people aren't unemployed, salaries go down and standards of living for them fall off a cliff. Tech innovation destroys lives in our current capitalist society because only the owners get the benefits. That's always been true.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> Tech innovation destroys lives in our current capitalist society because only the owners get the benefits. If you want to become a (partial) owner, buy stocks. :-)
- Draiken 2y ago
  Do I really own Intel/Tesla/Microsoft by buying their stock? No I don't. I can't influence anything on any of these companies unless I was already a billionaire with a real seat at the table. Even on startups where, in theory, employees have some skin in the game, it's not really how it works is it? You still can't influence almost anything and you're susceptible to all the bad decisions the founders will make to appease investors. Call me crazy but to say I own something, I have to at least be able to control some of it. Otherwise it's wishful thinking.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    You can pretty easily submit shareholder proposals for trolling purposes or ask questions. Other investors will probably vote "no" to your proposals, but for many companies you can force a vote for a pretty low minimum. In Canada, you're legally entitled to submit a proposal if you've owned C$2000 shares for 6 months. https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/when-can-a-company-refuse-a-shareholder-proposal/ https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/when-can-a-company...
- fanatic2pope 2y ago
  The market, in its majestic equality, allows the rich as well as the poor to buy stocks, trade bitcoin, and to own property.
marcosdumay 2y ago
> Even if all the replaced people aren't unemployed, salaries go down and standards of living for them fall off a cliff. Salaries of the remaining people tend to go up when that happens. And costs tend to go down for the general public. Owners are actually supposed to only see a temporary benefit during the change, and then go back to what they had before. If that's not how things are happening around you¹, consult with your local market-competition regulator why they are failing to do their job. 1 - Yeah, I know it's not how things are happening around you. That doesn't change the point.
- Draiken 2y ago
  I'm sorry but I have to call BS. >Salaries of the remaining people tend to go up when that happens. You're telling me with a straight face that after a company replaces part of its workforce with tech/automation, salaries go up? Really? Please show me some data on that because every single graph I've ever seen of salaries must be wrong then. We've had an enormous amount of innovation and breakthroughs in the last decades, but weirdly enough all salaries remain stagnated. If this is true, they should be going up constantly every time we offshore some work or get more efficient technology. The company can have 50000% growth and salaries will NOT go up. They basically never go up unless the companies want to retain an employee that's at risk of leaving and the replacement cost is high. The objective of a company is to give money to its owners, nothing else. Salaries are viewed as a cost, so they will never willingly increase their costs unless it's absolutely necessary. > And costs tend to go down for the general public. Assuming there aren't monopolies involved and it's a commodity, yes, that sometimes happens. If there's any monopoly involved, unfortunately companies will simply pocket the difference.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> Tech innovation destroys lives in our current capitalist society because only the owners get the benefits. If you want to become a (partial) owner, buy stocks. :-)

Draiken 2y ago
Do I really own Intel/Tesla/Microsoft by buying their stock? No I don't. I can't influence anything on any of these companies unless I was already a billionaire with a real seat at the table. Even on startups where, in theory, employees have some skin in the game, it's not really how it works is it? You still can't influence almost anything and you're susceptible to all the bad decisions the founders will make to appease investors. Call me crazy but to say I own something, I have to at least be able to control some of it. Otherwise it's wishful thinking.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jjmarr 2y ago
  You can pretty easily submit shareholder proposals for trolling purposes or ask questions. Other investors will probably vote "no" to your proposals, but for many companies you can force a vote for a pretty low minimum. In Canada, you're legally entitled to submit a proposal if you've owned C$2000 shares for 6 months. https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/when-can-a-company-refuse-a-shareholder-proposal/ https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/when-can-a-company...
fanatic2pope 2y ago
The market, in its majestic equality, allows the rich as well as the poor to buy stocks, trade bitcoin, and to own property.

marcosdumay 2y ago

> Even if all the replaced people aren't unemployed, salaries go down and standards of living for them fall off a cliff. Salaries of the remaining people tend to go up when that happens. And costs tend to go down for the general public. Owners are actually supposed to only see a temporary benefit during the change, and then go back to what they had before. If that's not how things are happening around you¹, consult with your local market-competition regulator why they are failing to do their job. 1 - Yeah, I know it's not how things are happening around you. That doesn't change the point.

Draiken 2y ago
I'm sorry but I have to call BS. >Salaries of the remaining people tend to go up when that happens. You're telling me with a straight face that after a company replaces part of its workforce with tech/automation, salaries go up? Really? Please show me some data on that because every single graph I've ever seen of salaries must be wrong then. We've had an enormous amount of innovation and breakthroughs in the last decades, but weirdly enough all salaries remain stagnated. If this is true, they should be going up constantly every time we offshore some work or get more efficient technology. The company can have 50000% growth and salaries will NOT go up. They basically never go up unless the companies want to retain an employee that's at risk of leaving and the replacement cost is high. The objective of a company is to give money to its owners, nothing else. Salaries are viewed as a cost, so they will never willingly increase their costs unless it's absolutely necessary. > And costs tend to go down for the general public. Assuming there aren't monopolies involved and it's a commodity, yes, that sometimes happens. If there's any monopoly involved, unfortunately companies will simply pocket the difference.