[mklim]

>You could have made the same inane argument for all the uneducated factory laborers who have been replaced by machines.

There's nothing inane about the argument. Have you ever been to Detroit? I've lived there for years. It's a horrible thing for these people to have been replaced by automation in their lifetimes. They didn't see the benefits in the increased productivity like their employers did, they just lost their livelihood and had to scramble for jobs that paid much less while simultaneously trying to retrain into other fields, if they were enterprising. The entire region is obviously devastated from the effects of it. Their prior automated work being "unfulfilling" and therefore terrible is a) debatable and b) nothing compared to the struggle of having no income at all. One guy I knew ended up homeless after he lost his job, then with a leg amputation because of frostbite from sleeping outside. When I met him he was making a living ticket scalping in his wheelchair all day. The short term consequences are real and terrible for these people.

[Chris2048]

Doesn't this just outline the terrible dependence these workers had on their jobs? No compensation of duty of care exists from employers; any number of things could have caused the workers to lose their jobs, they were always at risk even when not struggling.

as an analogy: Crack addicts going through withdrawal don't conclude from their pain that the drugs were a good thing. OP wasn't suggesting workers should suddenly have their jobs taken away, but that the whole situation is bad. Changing the situation, and how to do it, is an entirely different topic.

[iamatworknow]

Is this sarcasm of some kind or a legitimate point you're trying to make?

>Doesn't this just outline the terrible dependence these workers had on their jobs?

You're effectively saying people shouldn't rely on their jobs to support their livelihood. What other option do they (rather, we) have? Maybe factory workers should have had the foresight to see the industry changing toward automation, but even if they did, then what? Keep working to support your family 40 or more hours per week but learn an entirely new craft on top of that? Does that actually seem reasonable?

>any number of things could have caused the workers to lose their jobs, they were always at risk even when not struggling.

Yes, but the industry still existed. Say you worked for 10 years at Ford and got fired. Maybe GM or Chrysler has an opportunity for you, and they'd probably love your experience.

Does that sound familiar at all? Say you work for 10 years at Google and get fired. Maybe Facebook or Amazon has an opportunity for you, and they'd probably love your experience.

My point is that putting the blame on the employee shows a complete lack of empathy for someone because they "chose the wrong path in life". Does the employer have a duty to support the individual who became obsolete? No, but we should all collectively have a duty to make sure the lives of these people aren't completely destroyed, because as unlikely as it seems right now for those of us in the software world (and I'm sure it seemed unlikely in 1995 for those in the auto industry), we very well may be next.

[Chris2048]

> What other option do they (rather, we) have?

Better jobs. What options do a crack addict have? Very few. That doesn't mean they are better off now being deprived off it, they would be better off never being dependent.

> Keep working to support your family

Why did they have a family when they were at risk? Either didn't perceive the risk, they operated under a false sense of security; or no other options were offered because the jobs that existed were seem as suitable.

If there were no jobs they wouldn't be inclined to settle down. I note that turning down a job can be grounds for losing some welfare benefits.

> Maybe GM or Chrysler has an opportunity for you

speculative. In the context we are talking about there are dangerous correlations: If one worker loses their jobs, the chance that another will increase (due to the possibility of a common cause, in this case automation), not to mention the chance of greater competition from other out-of-work workers (or lower compensation).

> Maybe Facebook or Amazon

Are you still talking about bad jobs? I'd love programming/tech to be more automated, somehow.

> putting the blame on the employee shows a complete lack of empathy for someone because they "chose the wrong path in life"

that's your strawman,not my argument.

> Does the employer have a duty to support the individual who became obsolete?

Do you mean at current, legally? No.

legally or morally, in the future? yes, maybe, who knows. Corporate tax pays for some social welfare. Things won't change if you're not allowed to criticise the current system.

> we should all collectively have a duty to make sure the lives of these people aren't completely destroyed

I disagree, this isn't enough. We have a duty to make sure the lives are full of this kind of risk too, "completely destroyed" is too low a bar.

[Chris2048]

> the lives are full of this kind of risk

should be:

"their lives aren't full of this kind of risk"

[artursapek]

That is horrible, and I understand that it's a big socioeconomic challenge. I don't claim to know the answer, but I hope we find it as a species.