• JamesFire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.

    We shouldn’t let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won’t see any of the benefits.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      that won’t happen. technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.

      • JamesFire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

        It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was reduced drastically lowered since, but nothing changed. corporations don’t care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say “you know what, that’s enough, maybe you should work less”. wage theft keeps getting worse.

              • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.

                • pyre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  no? no one argued tech doesn’t reduce the need for working hours. read it again.

        • mriormro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          That wasn’t technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.

          • JamesFire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            And you think they just did it because?

            They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

          • JamesFire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

            • nomous@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Stop after your first 4 words and you’d be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you’ve already said.

              • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Obviously I’m trying to rationalize what I already said, that’s how an argument works.

                I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.

                That’s it.