| > 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. |
should be:
"their lives aren't full of this kind of risk"