system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: If a job can be done more effectively and cheaply by a machine, then it's pointless to have a human do it

When a large organization lays off workers because their jobs are obsolete, labor unions and politicians always get really angry. They make pleas like "This hurts the middle class!" and "How are these people going to feed their families?"

It feels insensitive to say this, but these are emotional arguments rather than rational ones. They're arguments with which I sympathize, as someone who's seen friends and family struggle with long-term unemployment after getting laid off. But they're arguments that serve only to make people feel better: they make no difference in the overall trend toward automation.

Jobs exist because work needs to get done, not because employers want to feed people's families. If the work can be done cheaper by a machine than by a human, then it's foolish and ultimately futile for an organization to keep using human labor.

I'm a liberal. I'm in favor of legally-mandated unemployment benefits, legally-mandated retraining programs for laid-off workers, and collective bargaining by labor unions. The view I would like changed is simply that *fighting against the obsolescence of jobs is a waste of time and energy*.
gpt
>It feels insensitive to say this, but these are emotional arguments rather than rational ones.


Well, no they aren't. Insofar as it's true that "This hurts the middle class," and "these people aren't going to be able to feed their families," these are true and serious objections. In fact, it seems as though your emotional affinity for the idea of an automated economy are getting in the way of seeing these objections as legitimate issues. An economy that doesn't allow for it's citizens to earn a living is unsustainable.