[mc32]

What if developers find it morally wrong to automate away jobs? Do they get a say?

Is it within their moral rights for backhoe operators demand manual ditch digging too because that will benefit their friends who lost jobs to powered equipment?

[robbrown451]

In that case they probably should quit and join a different company. I mean, if they don't agree with the core function of their job, why are they working there?

Regardless, if enough people think it is wrong that the company goes out of business, so be it. I don't think that is likely, but ok. Automation is going to continue to happen no matter what.

[archagon]

To some extent, yes. The economy exists for the benefit of humanity and not the other way around.

The question is: does the automation help us build things that were impossible before, or does it exist for the sole purpose of cutting jobs and funneling more money to the executives?

[takeda]

IMO what actually needs to be done is tax on automation that would directly fund universal income. That would actually help humanity.

[diegoperini]

That kills the whole purpose of automation. Automation is preferable because it is supposed to be cheaper while providing equal benefits as traditional production of goods and services.

My personal choice here would be a tax for practices that are provably automatable but not yet automated. The result is the same, we are funding a UBI but now businesses are also incentivized for innovation to escape from the tax. I'm probably missing hundreds of reasonable concerns with my simplistic view point though.

[kelnos]

> That kills the whole purpose of automation. Automation is preferable because it is supposed to be cheaper while providing equal benefits as traditional production of goods and services.

That's the capitalist enrich-the-owners purpose. In my mind, the real purpose of automation is to relieve humans the need to do work so they can live lives of leisure and personal enrichment. Unfortunately, I don't expect us to get there within my lifetime, if ever at all.

[thaumasiotes]

> My personal choice here would be a tax for practices that are provably automatable but not yet automated.

If a practice is provably automatable, then it's already automated. That's what proof looks like.

[nefitty]

Well, some companies seem to end up with weird incentives where it makes sense to be less productive. For example, a dev might create some script that eliminates some data processing roles. The CEO might decide to not implement it solely to save a few jobs. If there’s a tax for not automating then the organization will immediately respond in a more economically rational way.

[diegoperini]

Existence of a proof doesn't mean application of it is widespread.

[thaumasiotes]

In this case, the existence of a proof means that its application is universal. You may believe that the automation of one process could be easily generalized to another process, but you haven't proved it until you've automated the second process.

[robbrown451]

How exactly are you going to measure what is automation? Even something as basic as making a function rather than copy-pasting code is automation.Where do you draw the line? Who is going to measure this?

[mc32]

Let’s say we’ll go that far and companies accept that...

Does everyone refuse to work for Komatsu, John Deere, Liebherr, etc? Is that even possible?

[jancsika]

> Is it within their moral rights for backhoe operators demand manual ditch digging too because that will benefit their friends who lost jobs to powered equipment?

This seems like an unfruitful digression.

OP already agreed that the actions of ICE are immoral and that this action is within the moral rights of the workers.

The main question is about efficacy. That isn't elucidated by introducing a thought experiment where you believe the moral rights of developers are not as clear cut.

[mc32]

For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government.

So the question is can employees who have diverging moralities have direct input on what a company considers moral and immoral outside the common take of the population at large?

[jancsika]

> For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government.

At least for Americans you are wrong on all three counts, and that may be where the confusion is coming.

The workers (and as I already stated, the OP) all agree that there are actions done by ICE that are not only unethical but morally reprehensible. One of the (only) two major parties officially agrees as do a large portion of their constituents.

So your question about views "outside the common take" is interesting but not relevant to this discussion.

[ElFitz]

Can they? It seems so, yes.

Should they? Well, one hardly can force someone to work for one's self nowadays.

Companies aren't democracies. Why should "the population at large"'s opinion matter in anyway? Most people don't even know Github exists, let alone what it's for.