4 ms·
The problem there is the perceived unfairness that occurs when someone else in the company, sharing your approximate job, puts you out of work via automation.
by CarVac 12y ago
The problem there is the perceived unfairness that occurs when someone else in the company, sharing your approximate job, puts you out of work via automation.
How do you compensate those who lose their jobs as a result? What if they were also trying, but just happened to not be first to succeed?
It's a really cool idea though. (As a manufacturing engineer in a fairly old-fashioned company, I am currently trying to automate as much as possible; no idea yet about individual bonuses since I'm <1 year on the job)
- treelovinhippie 12y agoYeah it would need a lot of thought around the incentive structures. The original thought was that if you fully automate your own job you get your salary as a bonus. But if you fully automate someone else's job, you both split their salary 50/50 as a bonus. Now both of you are free to work on automating other jobs in the org. So you'd end up with various teams working together to automate jobs in the org. As a byproduct, it would also free up a lot of human capital in an organisation to focus on pure R&D and intrapreneurship.
- jellicle 12y agoWhy would a good capitalist pay years of salary, percentages of the company, or whatever else you're talking about offering, when they can simply outsource the automation job for $5,000 to China? And then fire you. And then hire you back on a $5,000 1099 contract to automate other people's jobs? You seem to be trying to come up with some sort of "fair" system, as if that were how compensation works now or ever will work.