4 ms·
Interesting question: is it cheaper to use a low-skill, uneducated workforce for low-skilled work, or a smaller but somewhat higher-skilled and educated workfor
by antidoh 14y ago
Interesting question: is it cheaper to use a low-skill, uneducated workforce for low-skilled work, or a smaller but somewhat higher-skilled and educated workforce to maintain the mechanized workforce replacement machines, as well as the smaller set of workers to design and program the machines? It's usually easier to point a guy to a corner and tell him to sweep, than it is to program a machine to do it and to get politely out of the way when a customer walks by.
Who pays for those higher skilled workers?
Can you get enough of them?
- lotsofpulp 14y agoThere's a lot of overhead (liability, benefits, dealing with people) that's removed when using machines.
- antidoh 14y agoBenefits are easy: don't offer them, or make sure you structure the work week so the employee doesn't get enough hours to qualify. People deal with unplanned for interactions with people better than a machine, they're much more flexible. Liability, you can go either way on that. I think it's an open question still, when you get down to low enough skill and pay. Edit: People are the ultimate low skilled contingent worker. A pre-programmed AI-equivalent in every box.