4 ms·
AFAIK it would be more fitting to say it is of little comfort to a factory worker who lost their job, that there are now 1.5 more jobs, better jobs, now availab
by seadan83 1y ago
AFAIK it would be more fitting to say it is of little comfort to a factory worker who lost their job, that there are now 1.5 more jobs, better jobs, now available to other people.
The reason for AFAIK, my understanding is it is more common for people to be left behind than to transition entirely to a new industry. (That is my memory of seeing some data around that, not saying I'm correct, but that I find it just as plausible to speculate that industrial transitions don't always transition with the same workers.) Perhaps we should talk farming? That is the biggest example pethaps. Some 80% plus of all populations used to do agriculture. The Grapes of Wraith were all about this very topic.
- bigstrat2003 1y agoThat's true as well. Also, the timeframe for those new jobs probably won't be just 1-2 years. But I was trying to use the most favorable scenario for tombert's argument to show that, even in that case, it still isn't enough.
- tombert 1y agoI mean, as someone who has been laid off a bunch of times (more than most people I think), I do sympathize with them. It sucks to have your income source cut off, it sucks to lose health insurance (or have to pay full freight with COBRA), it’s demoralizing to have to grovel at the feet of a bunch of potential employers for months at a time, it’s depressing to wake up to dozens of rejection emails, and it’s scary to not see an end in sight. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to forcing companies to pay some amount per month to people whose jobs were automated away for N years, and/or providing job training for a new career.