This isn’t necessarily true. Our company is leveraging AI to take a process that currently takes 18 months down to a few weeks.
Yes, the people who do the 18 month process think it’s going to replace them, but it’s actually going to let them do all of the other things that get shoved on the back burner and never get done.
You’ve just said the same thing but you don’t understand.
Reducing that job from 18 months to a few weeks frees up workeder for other tasks.
That means nobody gets hired to do those other tasks and people who would otherwise have good jobs have nothing.
It also means the people Stoll there can be easily coerced into working for lower wages because there’s a line of people at the door who will happily work for less since they’re currently unemployed.
That’s what replacing workers means and that’s the effect of labour reduction. It puts power into the hands of the owner of the tool instead of the people who use the tool to generate cashflow.
This is capitalism - the one with capital exploits the many without, all backed up by the exclusive right to violence of the state which is owned and run by the capital owning class.
The problem is that better wages, better working conditions and fewer hours were never a result of technology freeing up workers, but strong labor movements. The technology only allows capitalists to keep increasing productivity without letting it cost them more.
So tech isn’t bad. Farmers produce more food, which is good as we need that. But yeah, as a farmer you’re not looking at a growing labor market.
Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great.
The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.
Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great.
The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.
I’m not sure why you think employees should be compensated for the productivity increase that’s created by products the employer is paying for. AI is just a tool, like Excel.
This isn’t necessarily true. Our company is leveraging AI to take a process that currently takes 18 months down to a few weeks.
Yes, the people who do the 18 month process think it’s going to replace them, but it’s actually going to let them do all of the other things that get shoved on the back burner and never get done.
You’ve just said the same thing but you don’t understand.
Reducing that job from 18 months to a few weeks frees up workeder for other tasks. That means nobody gets hired to do those other tasks and people who would otherwise have good jobs have nothing.
It also means the people Stoll there can be easily coerced into working for lower wages because there’s a line of people at the door who will happily work for less since they’re currently unemployed.
That’s what replacing workers means and that’s the effect of labour reduction. It puts power into the hands of the owner of the tool instead of the people who use the tool to generate cashflow.
This is capitalism - the one with capital exploits the many without, all backed up by the exclusive right to violence of the state which is owned and run by the capital owning class.
Do you think farmers should not use any tractors and pick their crops using manual labour?
That would also create a lot of jobs.
The problem is that better wages, better working conditions and fewer hours were never a result of technology freeing up workers, but strong labor movements. The technology only allows capitalists to keep increasing productivity without letting it cost them more.
So tech isn’t bad. Farmers produce more food, which is good as we need that. But yeah, as a farmer you’re not looking at a growing labor market.
Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great. The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.
Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great. The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.
I think you just proved my point.
18 months down to a few weeks. That’s great, for the company.
But, did anyone get 17 months off or get paid 17 extra months for doing the same work that would have taken 18 months? I don’t think so.
You got extra work but didn’t get paid for the extra time it would have normally taken to complete the task.
See, what Bill said can’t actually happen, because people are paid for the time or work they produce.
How would an employee be paid for something that AI did? Capitalism won’t let this happen.
I did not prove your point at all.
I’m not sure why you think employees should be compensated for the productivity increase that’s created by products the employer is paying for. AI is just a tool, like Excel.