ackillesBAC t1_j725g3j wrote
Reply to comment by animal56 in ‘iPhones are made in hell’: 3 months inside China’s iPhone city - Workers describe a peak production season marred by labor protests and Covid-19 chaos, right as Apple reconsiders its China supply chain. by speckz
Yet people still complain those jobs are taken away by robots.
rukioish t1_j7296nz wrote
At the end of the day its all some people can do or know how to do depending on where they live. It's not like new jobs magically appear in dead-end factory towns.
ackillesBAC t1_j72b97b wrote
That's true. And that's why someone needs to step in and help. A corporation is not going to do the best thing for those towns so it has to be government.
A large tax per "robot" that goes directly to the people would help alot, aka guaranteed basic income.
CygnusX-1-2112b t1_j72di53 wrote
And that's a good way to ensure that the company will not build their factory in your country or will move it out if it is there, and that you now have even less tax money to support your people with.
It's all fucked no matter which way you tug it.
VampireSurvivorsFan t1_j73s1oj wrote
If only it was that simple.
ackillesBAC t1_j73s9td wrote
Corporations and the right wing would fight hard to avoid this. No one should get money for nothing, and especially not my money.
tren_rivard t1_j755ob6 wrote
That sounds like socialism. Surely the free market will work everything out.
flugenblar t1_j735y2e wrote
OTOH (just being argumentative) if the government comes in and makes people's lives comfortable even when the local economy sucks, then we're subsidizing certain choices being made by people. I don't live in a small town with few choices for employment. For a reason.
ackillesBAC t1_j73bsze wrote
The counter to that, would be the free market has to compensate by increasing wages elsewhere in order to draw people to them. Win-win for people, loss loss for Corporations. And the government is run by corporations so we know something like this will not happen
Bakemono30 t1_j73xv78 wrote
But if it's a loss-loss for corporations, where will the corporations go? Elsewhere. No one is going to agree to a loss-loss and especially not a corporate entity. Only place loss-loss exists is govt where they can eat the cost to help their constituents. You're leaning too much toward socialism which then has a lot of other issues wrapped in. Ultimately the good is only the extent of the good of the people at the top. And we all know you don't have goodwill measures to make it to the top.
ackillesBAC t1_j73yuv4 wrote
I get it leans toward socialist policy, but it's far from socialism. The free market and capitalism will never sacrifice for the betterment of the individual unless its a board member.
Bakemono30 t1_j73zen9 wrote
Well obviously, because it's a free market to do so. The idea is to always extend the strength of power at the top instead of appeasing the labor at the bottom. The lower you are the more replaceable you become. Thus the less valuable you are to a company. What you're suggesting can never happen as it's pretty much corporate suicide.
ackillesBAC t1_j748577 wrote
It's stock market suicide maybe, the corporation can still exist with a stock price of zero. They would just have a hard time keeping a CEO or issuing new stocks to raise cash.
Microsoft last year doubled their salary budget, and increased their employees stock options by 25%. In an effort to retain their employees. Microsoft stock didnt seam to move when they announced this in May of 2022.
Edit: Amazon actually did the same thing last year, except for they increase theirs by a little bit more than double
Bakemono30 t1_j749z2y wrote
Yeah you lost all credibility with me on that statement. Best you learn more on stocks, valuation and the economy before making claims on how you think the economy should be. Pretty juvenile statement. There's no way a company can exist with 0 stock price.
ackillesBAC t1_j74i5ql wrote
It's quite complicated but a company generally only goes to 0 when they declare bankruptcy. Chapter 7 bankruptcy means they will no longer exist (sold off to pay debtor's), however can can declare chapter 11 where they work with debtors to pay down the debt, they still need exist as a company. Stocks fall that low because the company is dead, the company does not die because the stock is that low.
I also should not have said a stock price of zero, but should have said virtually zero, such as movie pass now at 0.0001$.
Bakemono30 t1_j74p5oy wrote
Bruh you're talking about failed companies, how they going to help prop your idea? Better to have left that out than to weaken your stance.
ackillesBAC t1_j74psnv wrote
Sorry to confuse you.
flugenblar t1_j7bld3p wrote
So are you arguing that Microsoft should move to small town in order to raise the median wages there? What about the town they left?
ackillesBAC t1_j7bmqav wrote
No I was replying to the comment that doubling wages would be corporate suicide, yet Microsoft and Amazon literally did just that and seamed to not suffer at all from it.
flugenblar t1_j7bl1si wrote
I think you are making your own best argument against your position.
imafraidofmuricans t1_j72fhx4 wrote
Because they are replaced by starvation?
You talk as if the jobs have to be shit. THEY DONT.
ackillesBAC t1_j72sf3x wrote
Your right another easy solution is to simply higher twice the people and have half the shift length
dfields3710 t1_j72whmz wrote
But then collectively, everybody gets paid less. You go from making 4k a month to only 2k.
ackillesBAC t1_j73besl wrote
Depends on the company, they could simply pay people the same, and likely get a higher quality of work, or they could pay people half, expect a low quality of work. I would wage that most corporations would not choose to cut the work time in half double the pay and take the losses from their profits. But I think it would make for much happier workers, and a far better product
tren_rivard t1_j755tlo wrote
If you're only working half as much, why would you expect the same pay?
azvnza t1_j75fxa1 wrote
cuz i want a better quality of life duh
realistically, at low levels of work, there isn’t much to add quality wise either… how high quality can plugging in cables be?
ackillesBAC t1_j75qn0v wrote
Ever got something made in Germany or Italy vs made in China?
ackillesBAC t1_j75qum3 wrote
You wouldn't, but the point is to improve peoples lives, so save pay half the hours would help a whole lot with quality of life. Id also say depending on the exact job productivity wound be more than half and quality would be higher. Happy people are better workers
tren_rivard t1_j79mnc4 wrote
I wish I could get paid 100% for 50% work too. Makes no sense though, life isn't made up of wishes and rainbows.
Realistically, you know what people would do with that free time? Get another job.
ackillesBAC t1_j79obxa wrote
What a novel idea, work 2 different jobs 4 hours each for more money.
BTW you may be surprised to learn many many people don't work 100% of the time they are currently payed to work. People tend to be alot more productive when they are at work less, as shown in many studies like this one
There's no law saying that you can't go and get a second job if you want more money, and that gives even more power and options to the people. I would say that would even bring back the old concept that work hard to get money. I'd say in modern corporate structure working hard quite often gets you nothing, sometimes even gets you punished
tren_rivard t1_j79r1e3 wrote
So you just destroyed your own argument that less time working would lead to a better quality of life. Nice going!
ackillesBAC t1_j7a7ov5 wrote
I said if you want more money. There's a big difference between working 8 hours to barely survive and working 4 hours to barely survive.
If you equate money to happiness then you can work 3 or 4 jobs if you want. If you equate free time, family, friends, hobbies yada yada with happiness you can work one job 4 hours a day. It's your choice and that's the point.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments