why are people so against automation in factories if it makes things safer and produces more goods? is it just that people are losing jobs? but there are different jobs that open up.
In: Technology
You can´t really compete against well-tuned machine (automated picking) in warehouse.
PRO-MACHINE
+Machine error rate is 99,99*% constant
+Machine will run without break 24h
+Machine don´t call sick night before
+Machine is 50-100x quicker
CON-MACHINE
– Cannot be left unsupervised
– Can be really destructive to products in sort span of time
– Has lot of limitations what can be picked
– Need lot of skillful engineers to keep running
That is why the incredible machine is not perfect.
The jobs “created” by automation generally require a higher level of education than the people whose jobs were replaced can afford.
I’m opposed to it because improvements in technology should make things easier. They should create a shorter work week for the work force and increase pay. Instead they only force us to produce more in the same amount of time. The average worker today produces more than ten times what the same worker produced thirty years ago, yet they are paid less when you account for inflation and must work more. Finally the increased profits from all of this should be making everyone’s lives better and instead it on makes the rich richer.
The fact of the matter is automation makes it so less people are needed to do the same volume of labor. Consequentially people lose their jobs. this is exacerbated by the fact that the population is much higher than it was, say 50 to 100 years ago, during the industrial revolution and prior.
Automation is a good thing because it reduces the requirement for people to be so productive. It was anticipated as early as the industrial revolution that people would only need to work two to three days a week as technology continued to progress. That prediction came true however what was not anticipated was the inability of society to adapt to a reduced workload. That is why we have these antiquated ideas that productivity and time spent working are directly correlated.
People are really upset with the fact that the government hasn’t stepped in and instituted some kind of policy which mitigates this reality. People simply aren’t needed to be productive in society. This is why universal basic income is a viable solution to this problem.
Automating a job doesn’t automatically make another job open up.
Automation allows us to produce the same amount of goods with less input (namely labor). This is a good thing overall, but now you have an owner who has more profit now, and a former laborer who is now financially devastated. If we just let the transistion to automation go on like this, it will only create more poverty and unemployment, and all the wealth gained will be concentrated in relatively few people.
But mAh jerbs are going to be replaced by robots!
Seriously though, if your job can be done by a robot you should do everything in your power to find a new job.
It’s largely based on the “lump of labor” fallacy, that if you get rid of a particular job that the same number of people will be unemployed, as opposed to having alternatives now/eventually become available.
There are fewer jobs that open up that automation eliminates.
You only need a handful of technicians where you previously needed a couple dozen workers.
Capitalism doesn’t care if the work you would have been doing is now being done by a machine. If you’re automated out of a job, then you’re out on the street, you’re dying of starvation or exposure.
This is for the same reason that capitalism allows ANYONE to die on the street, whether or not their job got automated.
People really aren’t against it. It’s been happening for thousands of years and will continue to happen.
Latest Answers