2 ms·
No, it implies some of them will become entrepreneurs and hire some of the others. And that some costs will go down from this newfound efficiency. You'll never
by stephengillie 13y ago
No, it implies some of them will become entrepreneurs and hire some of the others. And that some costs will go down from this newfound efficiency.
You'll never convince me that Luddism is a progressive policy.
- gutnor 13y agoOnce one job has been automated away, all the people that were doing it need a realistic reconversion plan. A farm worker can convert easily into a factory worker, but cannot learn mandarin, software engineering or whatever overnight. (not even taking into account the legal challenge to convert. Whatever happens, if my job go to China, I will have massive legal hard time to follow it) Europe and the US have been historically bad at that. Europe hides those workers in "pre-pension" (loads of steel/mine worker get their state pension around 45), "long term unemployment"; US hides them in various disability assistance program. (source: there was an article here I think a few months back) Luddism want basically to stop progress in order to keep people employed, which was stupid 100 years ago, and is stupid now. GP on the other hand suggest to embrace the changes but accept some/lot people will need assistance.