“The glass-half-empty version is that the people who are most vulnerable to some of these shifts are some of the lower-paid folks in the economy,” he said, adding, “The glass-half-full version is if we’re actually able to transition them through re-skilling, etc., then they could be taking on roles that actually have higher incomes. If we can make the labor market work by enabling these transitions, it’s actually all for the good.”
The half full narrative is both naive and unrealistic. Even if lower paid people universally get paid more landlords and food providers will just raise prices because they can. The last three years proved that.
Crystal_Shards64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Maybe I’m reading this incorrectly but this quote stands out to me
‘“It’s going to change the number of work hours that humans have to do when sometimes machines do some of their work,” he said.’
I highly doubt it’s going to cut down on total hours worked. It will allow companies to make more profit while keeping workers at the same 8+ hour shifts. Unless something changes through regulation the average person won’t see benefits in my opinion. I could be wrong. Heck I would love to be wrong, but I don’t see it going that way
Mikey_donuts@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Time for UBI
whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’d assume that would translate to fewer, more efficient total man-hours, aka fewer people/jobs overall reaching roughly the same level of output as before