Quote (thesnipa @ 5 Feb 2020 21:59)
apples taste different that oranges. you have 100 years of worker protections built into your economy, mainly based on a meta of corporations willing to make less profit % because they have less pressure from the stock market.
but sure, keep banging that drum. it will only make me hundreds of thousands of dollars while a recession happens and people lose homes in a country you dont live in that doesnt affect you.
i hate to break it to you but i sit in meetings with fortune 500 companies that already have plans to layoff 30-50% of their workforce over the next 10-20 years. this is what i do every day. what do you think forcing them to guarantee a more safe workplace and forcing them to divert profits to employees will do? slow this down? you're just used to using that "bullshit claims" against right wingers that are working on theories apologizing for billionaires from Tucker Carlson. im working on what i do literally every day with info behind nondisclosure agreements.
i find it funny that im acting as an alarmist against an industry that i make piles of money from, and yet people still dont take my warnings seriously. so go ahead, put that fire out with gas. ill make money either way and i'll keep on acting morally to help people rather than emotionally to back up my side of the political aisle's narratives.
if you want me to prove it to you name some worker protection measures you think need to be put into place that you also dont feel will result in the jobs being automated rather than made better. and i can provide you with industry and even machine specific info on when that was tried and how it failed.
that's called 'confirmation bias' and 'anecdotal evidence'. just because YOU happen to be involved exclusively with companies for which this might be true, does not make this universally applicable.
also, your (very short term, and in that regard on theme with the trumpian spin on how well the economy is doing) solution, delaying the inevitable for a couple of years, because exploiting workers might be more profitable than automation for now, is an incredibly weak 'argument' against better wages and worker protections. it will ALWAYS be a simple cost benefit calculation - so why not make the millions of jobs that will inevitably be done by humans at least decent and sustainable, rather than supporting the corporate dictate of what can be done and what can't?
you're really making my point for me here regarding the unemployment rate and bull markets being window dressing for significant underlying problems and challenges that clearly refute the 'booming economy' propaganda...