[CPLX]

You see this argument over and over again but it’s the exception that proves the rule.

Most of the time when it’s made it’s just papering over yer another situation where a surplus is being squeezed out of a transaction by a parasitic manager class using principal-agent problem dynamics.

The people who invented this stuff are always trying to tell you they’ve invented the cotton gin or something when in fact they’ve just come up with a clever way to take someone else’s work and exploit it.

[robertlagrant]

What was described wasn't the principal-agent problem. If I'm an employee and my job becomes simpler or more productive through an automation investment by someone else, I don't think I deserve part of the increased profit unless I'm part of a profit-sharing agreement that would also see me absorb losses.

[andrepd]

> unless I'm part of a profit-sharing agreement that would also see me absorb losses

And how many workers even have the possibility of an arrangement like this, i.e. a worker-owned cooperative?

Yes, that is exactly the point. When a labour-saving technological development comes along, it's payday to the capital-having class and dreary times for the labour-doing class.

[robertlagrant]

And it's good for everyone down the line, because the good being produced becomes more affordable and better. It might be hard to zoom out from these current times when we can expect continual progress, but this is one of the only reasons why anything ever gets better.

I'm from the UK, and we used to make motorbikes. They got - correctly - outcompeted by Japanese bikes in the 1950s that were built with more modern investment and tooling. If Japan hadn't done that, we'd have more motorcycle jobs in the UK, and terrible motorcycles that still leaked oil because the seam of the crankcase would still be vertical and not horizontal.

I'm not saying anything about this process is perfect and pain-free, but it seems that a lot of the things we have now are because of processes like this. Should Tesla sell through dealerships instead of direct to consumers? I think the answer is, "Tesla should do what's best for its customers", and not "Tesla should act to keep dealership jobs and not worry about what's best for its customers."

Businesses exist for their customers and not their employees, and having just been part of a business that, shall we say, radically downsized, I've seen a little of the pain of that. Thankfully it was a high tech business, and as the best employment protection is other employers, and there are loads of employers wanting tech skills I've seen my great colleagues all get new jobs. But I think it's ultimately disempowering to think of your employer like a superior when it should feel like an equal whose goals happen to coincide with yours for a while.

[b3morales]

In the case of Copilot, the automation "investment" rides directly on the back of a large pile of code. And the creators of that code are receiving none of the fruits of this "investment".

[bamboozled]

Would for you to present a concrete example of this. Genuinely curious.