The right seems to want to remove as many protections and rights of workers as they can when a company wants to hire an employee

[ZiprHead]

Remove minimum wage
Roll back health and safety regulations
Remove privacy rights
etc.
etc.
etc.

 

[Axulus]

Remove minimum wage
Roll back health and safety regulations
Remove privacy rights
etc.
etc.
etc.

Nice straw-man, typical of a person who has nothing of substance to offer to the conversation (hint, there is a vast space in between an employer being someone's cradle to grave nanny and caretaker and for there to be no employment laws whatsoever). Also, why did you need to start a new thread?

 

[Bronzeage]

Remove minimum wage
Roll back health and safety regulations
Remove privacy rights
etc.
etc.
etc.

Nice straw-man, typical of a person who has nothing of substance to offer to the conversation. Also, why did you need to start a new thread?

Are you saying the rich don't want to do these things, or it is poor people who want to do these things?

 

[fromderinside]

prick.

 

[Axulus]

Nice straw-man, typical of a person who has nothing of substance to offer to the conversation. Also, why did you need to start a new thread?

Are you saying the rich don't want to do these things, or it is poor people who want to do these things?

The conversation is about should an employer be required, by law, and all the distinctive it entails to wanting to hire anyone in the first place, to do all of the following?

-Pay everyone a living well wage for the worker and their family
-Pay for health insurance
-Pay for retirement
-Pay for unemployment
-Pay for childcare
-Pay for vacations
-Pay for sick leave
-Pay for family leave
-Pay for time off due to injury
-Be vulnerable to massive penalties and lawsuits when an employee commits a crime or is negligent
-Many other things I'm probably missing

Hiring an employee vs. having technology do the work already has the following negatives:

-The employee sometimes doesn't show up for work
-The employee needs to be found and interviewed
-The employee needs training
-A department (HR) needs to be set up to determine compensation and policies
-The employee sometimes lies on their resume
-The employee might decide to quit at any moment
-There is an administrative burden with employees, from payroll filings, to labor law compliance, to paycheck distribution, etc.
-The employee may bad mouth the company, whether legitimate or not
-The employee may reveal company secrets
-The employee may steal or embezzle
-Employees need breaks
-Employees do personal stuff on company time, sometimes a lot
-Employees can get injured
-Employees can only work a certain number of hours and prefer certain hours of the day
-The employee may get into conflicts with other employees
-Many other things I'm probably missing

Among many other things that do not apply to having technology/automation do work.

The more barriers the left puts in place when hiring an employee, the fewer employees a company will want to hire and the more they will seek out technology to replace employees, and the more investment that will occur in companies researching and developing technology that will replace employees.

The question is, where is the right balance? Is the left's vision of putting in as many burdens, expenses and barriers up as possible on the company when a company wants to hire an employee the right balance here?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Are you saying the rich don't want to do these things, or it is poor people who want to do these things?

The conversation is about should an employer be required, by law, and all the distinctive it entails to wanting to hire anyone in the first place, to do all of the following?

-Pay everyone a living well wage for the worker and their family
-Pay for health insurance
-Pay for retirement
-Pay for unemployment
-Pay for childcare
-Pay for vacations
-Pay for sick leave
-Pay for family leave
-Pay for time off due to injury
-Be vulnerable to massive penalties and lawsuits when an employee commits a crime or is negligent
-Many other things I'm probably missing

Hiring an employee vs. having technology do the work already has the following negatives:

-The employee sometimes doesn't show up for work
-The employee needs training
-The employee sometimes lies on their resume
-The employee might decide to quit at any moment
-There is an administrative burden with employees, from payroll filings, to labor law compliance, to paycheck distribution, etc.
-The employee may bad mouth the company, whether legitimate or not
-The employee may reveal company secrets
-The employee may steal or embezzle
-Employees need breaks
-Employees do personal stuff on company time, sometimes a lot
-Employees can get injured
-Employees can only work a certain number of hours and prefer certain hours of the day
-Many other things I'm probably missing

Among many other things that do not apply to having technology/automation do work.

The more barriers the left puts in place when hiring an employee, the fewer employees a company will want to hire and the more they will seek out technology to replace employees, and the more investment that will occur in companies researching and developing technology that will replace employees.

The question is, where is the right balance? Is the left's vision of putting in as many burdens, expenses and barriers up as possible when a company wants to hire an employee the right balance here?

I thought there was other thread dealing with that.

Oh look, THERE IS the other thread dealing with that.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-can-when-a-company-wants-to-hire-an-employee

Oh And I LOVE the threat.

"Work for this wage which doesn't support you, or be replaced by a robot that doesn't demand wages, benefits and safety." You know what else a robot doesn't do? Buy stuff.

Jessayin'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, you could just program a robot to buy things. Of course, then you'd have to pay the robot and let it out of the office a few hours a day in order to buy things, so that would just be counterproductive.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well, you could just program a robot to buy things. Of course, then you'd have to pay the robot and let it out of the office a few hours a day in order to buy things, so that would just be counterproductive.

True that.

 

[Axulus]

The conversation is about should an employer be required, by law, and all the distinctive it entails to wanting to hire anyone in the first place, to do all of the following?

-Pay everyone a living well wage for the worker and their family
-Pay for health insurance
-Pay for retirement
-Pay for unemployment
-Pay for childcare
-Pay for vacations
-Pay for sick leave
-Pay for family leave
-Pay for time off due to injury
-Be vulnerable to massive penalties and lawsuits when an employee commits a crime or is negligent
-Many other things I'm probably missing

Hiring an employee vs. having technology do the work already has the following negatives:

-The employee sometimes doesn't show up for work
-The employee needs training
-The employee sometimes lies on their resume
-The employee might decide to quit at any moment
-There is an administrative burden with employees, from payroll filings, to labor law compliance, to paycheck distribution, etc.
-The employee may bad mouth the company, whether legitimate or not
-The employee may reveal company secrets
-The employee may steal or embezzle
-Employees need breaks
-Employees do personal stuff on company time, sometimes a lot
-Employees can get injured
-Employees can only work a certain number of hours and prefer certain hours of the day
-Many other things I'm probably missing

Among many other things that do not apply to having technology/automation do work.

The more barriers the left puts in place when hiring an employee, the fewer employees a company will want to hire and the more they will seek out technology to replace employees, and the more investment that will occur in companies researching and developing technology that will replace employees.

The question is, where is the right balance? Is the left's vision of putting in as many burdens, expenses and barriers up as possible when a company wants to hire an employee the right balance here?

I thought there was other thread dealing with that.

Oh look, THERE IS the other thread dealing with that.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-can-when-a-company-wants-to-hire-an-employee

Oh And I LOVE the threat.

"Work for this wage which doesn't support you, or be replaced by a robot that doesn't demand wages, benefits and safety." You know what else a robot doesn't do? Buy stuff.

Jessayin'

I don't need my robots to buy things for me to have customers who buy things.

Also, it's not a threat, it's simply reality that the best and cheapest method used to produce something is actively being searched for and developed and will be used by businesses once found. And given how difficult and burdensome the left wants to make it to hire employees makes the search and development will be all that more intense and the investment will pour in for alternatives. Denial of this reality will lead to unintended consequences.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where did the customers get this money?

 

[Axulus]

Where did the customers get this money?

From their army of robots that produced stuff for them

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where did the customers get this money?

From their army of robots that produced stuff for them

My army of robots is going to break into your shop and steal all of your stuff. Including all of your robots.

It was your own damn fault for trusting robots.

 

[Bronzeage]

Are you saying the rich don't want to do these things, or it is poor people who want to do these things?

....

The question is, where is the right balance? Is the left's vision of putting in as many burdens, expenses and barriers up as possible on the company when a company wants to hire an employee the right balance here?

I'm not sure where the balance is, but I know what happens when there is no balance and everything falls over.

That is when the poor people get together and storm the rich man's house, kill him and his family, and take all his stuff. It's not right, it's not particularly pretty, but it's reality. It's what keeps the rich and powerful from making slaves of everybody. The rich get to keep most of what they collect, only if they cooperate just enough to keep the rest of us from breaking down the gate of his gated community.

It's easy to see the modest demands of the left as an attack almost as bad as gate crashing, but it's a long way from that. The law protects the rich man from a lot of things that are kind of strange, but we have simply gotten used to.

For example, a rich man can be a partner in an enterprise which drills an oil well, or a coal mine, which destroys the livelihood of everyone who lives near the operation. These are real damages to real people. The rich man is protected by law. The most he has at risk is the cash value of his portion of the company. He may have been party to the destruction of many people's lives, even their actual life, yet the law says he cannot be held responsible. He can pool his money with thousands of other people for enterprises which can create havoc, but with no worries beyond the money he put in the pot. It's easy to, because there is a section of the law, known as corporate law which are intended to make this process easy and relatively risk free. If the rich man gives his money to a less than honest person, the government promises to catch this person and punish him.

On the other hand, while it is relatively easy to form a corporation and combine the money of many people, it is quite difficult to combine the labor of many people. Even though we are told that corporations are now people, real people get the raw deal when it comes to incorporating.

- - - Updated - - -

From their army of robots that produced stuff for them

My army of robots is going to break into your shop and steal all of your stuff. Including all of your robots.

It was your own damn fault for trusting robots.

Fight the power, whether it be AC or DC.

 

[Axulus]

From their army of robots that produced stuff for them

My army of robots is going to break into your shop and steal all of your stuff. Including all of your robots.

It was your own damn fault for trusting robots.

I have a whole bunch of these guys guarding my place. Are you sure your army can get past them?

Why don't we settle this like gentlemen and avoid all that costly damage to our armies?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I thought there was other thread dealing with that.

Oh look, THERE IS the other thread dealing with that.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-can-when-a-company-wants-to-hire-an-employee

Oh And I LOVE the threat.

"Work for this wage which doesn't support you, or be replaced by a robot that doesn't demand wages, benefits and safety." You know what else a robot doesn't do? Buy stuff.

Jessayin'

I don't need my robots to buy things for me to have customers who buy things.

Who?

If working people are not working because they greedily wanted enough money to make rent AND eat, who will buy?

Who will pay for the now unemployed, or will they starve gently into that good night?

How does the economy absorb people who are not working but won't just die?

Also, it's not a threat, it's simply reality that the best and cheapest method used to produce something is actively being searched for and developed and will be used by businesses once found. And given how difficult and burdensome the left wants to make it to hire employees makes the search and development will be all that more intense and the investment will pour in for alternatives. Denial of this reality will lead to unintended consequences.

Oh it's a threat. If it isn't, then why is presented not so often as the inevitability of economic evolution, but as what happen when workers want too much money, so we had better not raise the MW or disallow tip wages, or enact new safety legislation, etc. ("Too much" being defined by employers, or market true believers with little to no input from or consideration for employees)

 

[Axulus]

I don't need my robots to buy things for me to have customers who buy things.

Who?

If working people are not working because they greedily wanted enough money to make rent AND eat, who will buy?

Who will pay for the now unemployed, or will they starve gently into that good night?

How does the economy absorb people who are not working but won't just die?

Also, it's not a threat, it's simply reality that the best and cheapest method used to produce something is actively being searched for and developed and will be used by businesses once found. And given how difficult and burdensome the left wants to make it to hire employees makes the search and development will be all that more intense and the investment will pour in for alternatives. Denial of this reality will lead to unintended consequences.

Oh it's a threat. If it isn't, then why is presented not so often as the inevitability of economic evolution, but as what happen when workers want too much money, so we had better not raise the MW or disallow tip wages, or enact new safety legislation, etc. ("Too much" being defined by employers, or market true believers with little to no input from or consideration for employees)

It's already happening across Europe where they have implemented the kinds of "rights" and "protections" envisioned by the left in this country. Have you not seen the hordes of unemployed people who can't find any job for any wage?

Also, who said anything about starvation? Why be so hyperbolic about everything? When was the last time anyone starved to death in the developed world, unemployed or not?

As already mentioned, the people who will be buying stuff are the elite creatives who rake in the dough under this arrangement and the owners of the businesses and robot armies.

 

[ZiprHead]

Remove minimum wage
Roll back health and safety regulations
Remove privacy rights
etc.
etc.
etc.

Nice straw-man, typical of a person who has nothing of substance to offer to the conversation (hint, there is a vast space in between an employer being someone's cradle to grave nanny and caretaker and for there to be no employment laws whatsoever). Also, why did you need to start a new thread?

Awww, did I strike a nerve?

 

[ZiprHead]

I guess mocking bullshit threads is more popular than the thread it mocks is cool.

 

[Axulus]

I guess mocking bullshit threads is more popular than the thread it mocks is cool.

You get a gold star!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You know who doesn't need to get gold stars? Robots.

They're indifferent to your praise and you don't have to take valuable time away from your desk in order to maintain their morale.