[CrLf]

The Earth's population isn't getting any lower, those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive.

It's utopian to think job losses mean everybody gets their workload reduced, as this has never happened before. Automation has never reduced anybody's workloads. In fact, every reduction has happened to either eliminate de-facto slaves (industrial revolution) or because excessive workloads actually reduce productivity.

[chongli]

those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive.

If we have the technology to replace those people and we don't do it, then we as a society are already supporting them just to survive. You're talking about artificially maintaining inefficiency. If we're going to go down that road, we might as well start paying people to dig holes and fill them back up again.

[leereeves]

Workloads have been reduced before.

The 40 hour workweek is significantly shorter than the 6 12 hour work days people used to endure.

Why not reduce the workweek again, to say, 32 hours?

[RobertoG]

Yes, and we shouldn't forget why workloads have been reduced before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

It's not a 'natural' evolution, but organized fight from labour.

The same with the general conditions of work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_and_Collieries_Act_1842

So, in my opinion, reducing the workweek or, an alternative that I think is more practical, stop working younger it's against powerful interests and can't be done without a fight.

[leereeves]

And that's a fight that will be prompted by high unemployment after automation replaces many jobs.

The transition will be difficult (they usually are) but the end result (more free time for everyone) sounds good to me.

[RobertoG]

I hope so. But history tell us that the first reaction to high unemployment and bad economic conditions is the dark side of politics.

[guntars]

They already need the support of the rest of society. No one survives on their own anymore. Automating a job like this gives more time and money back to people who buy groceries, which is almost everyone. Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs while they find something else to do.

[falcolas]

> Automating a job like this gives more [...] money back to people who buy groceries

Honestly, I think this is never going to actually be the case. Why would a grocery store lower prices just because their costs went down a bit? Neither the demand nor the supply has changed, nor has the price people are willing to pay for their groceries.

If nothing has changed but your costs, why lower the prices when you can simply report increased revenue to your shareholders? If competition comes along, a quick "we're premium, they are cheap" marketing campaign (or buying them out) would probably cost less than lowering the prices to match.

[aianus]

Just look at Walmart. They're dirt cheap because their costs and their margins are the lowest and consumers flock to their stores.

[falcolas]

Funny enough, if you find the same products at other stores, they are the same price. I think Walmart thrives by offering a diverse selection of inexpensive offerings, not by pricing identical items lower (to reflect their lower workforce costs). For example, videogames cost the same at Walmart as they do at Target. To see a different price for a specific item, you have to go to a very different type of store (Sam's Club/Costco).

I think it's fair to say that even if Walmart could half their operating costs with technology, those savings would not find their way into the pockets of consumers.

[handzhiev]

You'll have to lower the prices if you can because the next store in the neighbourhood will do it to outcompete you anyway.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs //

It can, that's clear, the problem is convincing the people who didn't lose their jobs that they should take a take hike to support the others; that's not an easy sell in Western Capitalism at least.