this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
954 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

59111 readers
3145 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Bill Gates says a 3-day work week where 'machines can make all the food and stuff' isn't a bad idea::"A society where you only have to work three days a week, that's probably OK," Bill Gates said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themurphy@lemmy.world 94 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It has never been a technology problem.

If society was build correct in a democracy, advances in all fields would always be for benefitting the people and the majority.

This has been a problem ever since the industrial revolution and what caused the great depression.

If technology advances to a stage where we only need 75% of the current work force, the answer is not to fire 25%. It is for everyone to benefit and work 25% less or get 25% more pay. (or 12,5% work less and 12,5% more pay. Our choice)

That is a working democracy.

[–] elrik@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

You should get 33% more pay as the full work force productivity would be 4/3 of the original in your example.

This difference might be clearer with an example where only half of the work force is required to match the original productivity. In this case, if the full work force continues to work, productivity is presumably doubled. That's not a 50% increase. It's 200% of the original or a 100% increase. So the trade-off should be between 50% fewer working hours and 100% more pay.

Of course, instead you'll work the same hours for the same pay and some shareholders pocket that 100% difference.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] piskertariot@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The term you'll get more mileage out of here is Luddite.

The looms are stealing our jobs, so we should organize against them.