[aj7]

It is absurd to tie productivity to workers. An example suffices. A technician running a pair of horizontal machining centers accomplishes the finish machining of eighty automobile engine blocks in an eight hour shift. Now, he’s replaced by a robot and automatic gauging. There are two fundamental problems. In the technician reference frame, his productivity has suddenly and discontinuously fallen to zero, as he sits in fear at home. From the company reference frame, productivity has increased. I used the term reference frame, from physics, on purpose. The idea of productivity is fundamentally flawed- in our system the two views cannot be reconciled, and the discontinuity in the worker frame is also highly problematic.

[throwawaylinux]

Economic rationalism, globalism, etc have always justified that by saying the net productivity in society has increased, so the technician can be taken care of (or at worst, is collateral damage in service of the greater good).

The problem is they don't account for other damage caused by that. People get a sense of purpose from work, many would actually rather work than get a welfare check. Communities are built around industries. Uncertainty and changing circumstances can have big impacts on people, more than can just be measured by subtracting their income from some balance sheet.

[aj7]

It’s more than that. Because of advances in technology and science, “productivity” will always increase.

But to whom go the spoils?

And when will we take responsibility for the losers?

[robertlagrant]

Not necessarily - it could be that a lot of effort goes into (for example) how products look, and how polished they are, to increase products' relative positions in their markets, instead of prioritising absolute increases in productivity for mankind.

[mellavora]

and the assumption that there is some kind of UBI to make sure that the technician is taken care of.

We've been a bit slow about adding that ingredient into the formula.

[SyzygistSix]

Or reducing work hours in response.