Unfortunately, the power is in the hands of the temp workers.... if they all stick together. If they all collectively demanded better working conditions and better pay, they could succeed. After all, the work won't get done if they don't do it. Management certainly isn't going to dirty their hands in this kind of job.
And after all what we see, it really is have-nots (proletariat) versus the haves(capitalists/managers).
This is similar to the logic people use with the War on Drugs. As soon as there are enough dead Mexicans and gangsters in the street, eventually they HAVE to lift prohibition, right?
The government can remain irrational for longer than we can remain alive.
Look at countries like India or even China. Countries can survive hundreds of years with high level of poverty.
The key thing is if the situation in the US will get worse faster or slower than the slow mentality shift that is required to considered poor people as disposable.
I believe he's being satirical. Obviously a bad job is (usually) better than no job, that's the point. The whole concept of "exploitation" makes no sense. The businesses that do hire are benefiting people way more than those that don't hire any at all or have replaced workers with automation.
Something like a basic income could distribute money from all those industries at the same time to those who need it. It would solve the unemployment problem, or at least make it more bearable, and improve working conditions for these workers.
Totally agree. As productivity continually improves, I see no way to move forward without a basic income. And this is coming from a person with libertarian-leaning ideals.
The hoe displaced farm workers. Machines replaces lots of farm workers.
Shipping containers destroyed the massive labor requirement and theft of the shipping industry. Several orders of magnitude of jobs destroyed.
People don't just wither and die; the efficiencies offered by technological change turn into new industries and higher quality of life for everyone. Would you really be better off if everyone had to farm or hunt their own food?
So we can give them a living wage, which will accelerate the development of a robotic replacement, so that they can earn a bit more in the meantime, before their inevitable unemployment?
The earlier mass unemployment comes the better. Only that will necessitate some major rethinking of classical employment and welfare ideas, and very likely, finally have us implement basic income.
As opposed to what? Deliberately staggering progress in an effort to maintain a society of contrived busywork so people can slave away for pennies? You might as well just give away the pennies rather than deliberately embrace inefficiency in an effort to keep these jobs in existence.
Agreed. The automobile manufacturers were very successful in improving quality and efficiency via robotics, and were also encouraged to do so by enormous drags from labor unions. Warehouses have also increased automation, but clearly they can improve more. Beyond the warehouse, I'm eager to see their deployment in retail stores and fast-food. Consumers will benefit from efficiencies, and the unhappy workers will be free to find jobs more to their liking.
Keep in mind, a negative income tax/minimum basic income plan only has problems passing until a majority of the population can't find work. History has taught us the results of "Let them eat cake".
And after all what we see, it really is have-nots (proletariat) versus the haves(capitalists/managers).