The reason why suicide was such a big deal (besides the 30 hour work days and no time off) was because of the employee death benefits package which included suicide! In the benefits package, your family got what essentially your entire life's wages (assuming you had lived to retirement anyway) in one lump sum. The agreement they signed signs away their families right to claim that package in the event of suicide.CM156 said:
Foxconn Replacing Workers With Robots
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
I'm not sure what you guys are upset about. This happened during the 70ies and 80ies in the West already and there are still jobs in manufacturing available here. Not as many, true, but the ones there are, are generally less tedious and less likely to cause you to slit yer own throat.
Also, if this helps curb the ridiculous overpopulation problems in China, I'm all for it.
Also, if this helps curb the ridiculous overpopulation problems in China, I'm all for it.
Let me get this straight, firing people who are suicidal, replacing them with robots which will probably result in more suicides and then saying that those suicidal persons aren't the companies problem anymore, will lead to a better reputation? I don't really get this logic.
How about, you know, actually really making the working conditions better. More than just raising their wage a bit Yeah I know it sounds crazy but it might actually work.
How about, you know, actually really making the working conditions better. More than just raising their wage a bit Yeah I know it sounds crazy but it might actually work.
Wow these guys are real good at worker relations, I do wonder why anyone would commit suicide... 
I do support robot workforce, because we suck at mundane tasks, so I hope those workers go and find something creative to do.
Maybe play a round of "Rob the CEO", sure it isn't as adrenaline filled as a pavement dive but I hear it is alot better for ones health.
I do support robot workforce, because we suck at mundane tasks, so I hope those workers go and find something creative to do.
Maybe play a round of "Rob the CEO", sure it isn't as adrenaline filled as a pavement dive but I hear it is alot better for ones health.
You all of course realize that this is EXACTLY the same thing that happened in EVERY developed country in the history of ever, right ?
Automatizing processes that only require fixed motions and patterns is nothing evil. It´s what countries like America used to do, before they realized that it is EVEN CHEAPER to use some dirty foreigner for the job.
Automatizing processes that only require fixed motions and patterns is nothing evil. It´s what countries like America used to do, before they realized that it is EVEN CHEAPER to use some dirty foreigner for the job.
If you replace all jobs with cheap/free labour, then everything becomes cheap/free. People will be able to afford products of automated labour on government subsidies. Taxes will be collected from the factory owners' profits and distributed among the unemployed. Problem solved, right?The_Emperor said:
If that actually happened then it would be lovely. Unfortunately if you taxed the owners of said factories enough to give the unemployed money to buy products from said owners they would simply making stuff technically for free or at a loss and wouldnt get any richer. The idea is you make the product then charge more for it than you paid to make it. Not make stuff and hand it out.Don Reba said:
It would work if everything was free anyway, but in a profit based economy what you propose is impossible
unless you are making a joke in which case "
"
It would still work. Say, if an unemployed person spends $100/month to make a living, and a factory owner spends $10000, the government just has to take everything away from the factory owner, but those $10000. It works, because producers are also consumers.The_Emperor said:If that actually happened then it would be lovely. Unfortunately if you taxed the owners of said factories enough to give the unemployed money to buy products from said owners they would simply making stuff technically for free or at a loss and wouldnt get any richer. The idea is you make the product then charge more for it than you paid to make it. Not make stuff and hand it out.
It would work if everything was free anyway, but in a profit based economy what you propose is impossible
unless you are making a joke in which case "
However, there would still be a class of employed creative professionals designing products and building the robots. Taxation might need some weird brackets to even out the inequality enough to guarantee survival of a large unemployed class. In general, reducing production costs in a functional economy should be strictly a good thing.
Those are just made up numbers. You would have 2 classes of people you would have the unemployed impoverished and the people who simply inherit wealth, basically the way it is now but worse. No wealthy person would vote for someone who is going to take all their money away and give it to other people.Don Reba said:It would still work. Say, if an unemployed person spends $100/month to make a living, and a factory owner spends $10000, the government just has to take everything away from the factory owner, but those $10000. It works, because producers are also consumers.The_Emperor said:If that actually happened then it would be lovely. Unfortunately if you taxed the owners of said factories enough to give the unemployed money to buy products from said owners they would simply making stuff technically for free or at a loss and wouldnt get any richer. The idea is you make the product then charge more for it than you paid to make it. Not make stuff and hand it out.
It would work if everything was free anyway, but in a profit based economy what you propose is impossible
unless you are making a joke in which case "
However, there would still be a class of employed creative professionals designing products and building the robots. Taxation might need some weird brackets to even out the inequality enough to guarantee survival of a large unemployed class. In general, reducing production costs in a functional economy should be strictly a good thing.
Besides for there to be infinite growth there needs to be infinite resources and that's impossible.
I can see your ideology but unfortunately it would never work in practice, because it doesn't work now.
low cost goods are good but when nobody has enough money to buy them they are pointless, and the benefits system will never extend enough to be able to support a profit based economy