If they can’t find a way to pay a “living wage” they will just reduce their number of employees and make the remaining ones do more work. Or even worse, they’ll be replaced by some form of automation.
Replacing workers with automation is great, the problem is who benefits from the less work required by fewer people. Our current system, Capitalism, means that increased productivity comes at the workers expense and fewer workers see the benefit.
Just because someone already sprained their ankle, doesn’t mean stabbing them doesn’t worsen their situation. But that’s literally your argument.
Automation is steadily becoming cheaper, and it will invariably replace human job X when it becomes less expensive than that human labor. Jacking up the cost of the human labor will obviously automation to cross that threshold MUCH FASTER.
If they can’t find a way to pay a “living wage” they will just reduce their number of employees and make the remaining ones do more work. Or even worse, they’ll be replaced by some form of automation.
Replacing workers with automation is great, the problem is who benefits from the less work required by fewer people. Our current system, Capitalism, means that increased productivity comes at the workers expense and fewer workers see the benefit.
Ideally the workers that aren’t needed anymore due to automation make / work at a new company, causing the economy to grow.
That isn’t sustainable and also won’t apply to all workers.
deleted by creator
The counter to this is obvious. What’s stopping them doing that for workers on less than a living wage?
deleted by creator
Just because someone already sprained their ankle, doesn’t mean stabbing them doesn’t worsen their situation. But that’s literally your argument.
Automation is steadily becoming cheaper, and it will invariably replace human job X when it becomes less expensive than that human labor. Jacking up the cost of the human labor will obviously automation to cross that threshold MUCH FASTER.
You are the fool here.