You are falling into the trap of the Luddites. As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them. Otherwise why not pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again, forever?
You are falling into the meta-trap of misunderstanding the Luddites.
The Luddites weren't idiots, nor they were against progress. They revolted because the way the new technology was applied was destroying their specialization, and in many cases, destroying their lives.
The promise of "reallocating skilled workers to new areas" is bullshit at the individual level. What's being reallocated is the new generation, the kids that grow to specialize in the new area instead of the old one. The specialists from the old area aren't being transferred along with rank and pay. They get to restart at the junior level, with commensurate pay, while they retain their age, their living costs, their families and other dependents. Even the kids of those "reallocated" old-timers aren't going to partake fully in the newly opened fields of work - they'll be weighed down by the fallout of their families suddenly dropping a level or two on the living standards ladder.
The Luddites rebelled because their lives were being destroyed. And the people who did the destruction? They didn't give two damns about what society will get out of it. They did it only because they saw a way to cut costs down and increase their own profits. You don't get to criticize Luddites for selfishness when the other side was just as selfish, if not more.
For hundreds of thousands of years, pre-historic man became very skilled at cutting rocks in order to make stone age tools. Generations upon generations of early humans learned, worked on, and passed down to their children the way to perfectly smash rocks against each other in order to cut them into pointy shapes. In this way they made arrow heads, knives, axes, and so on. It's hard to believe, but this primitive technology was revolutionary.
When metal working developed, all of the hundreds of thousands of years of skill in making stone tools was meaningless - it had been superseded by new technology.
I don't care one iota about craftsmen who can no longer conduct their craft in the way they want because a better technology came around. If one person can make 1000 shoes a day while a cobbler can only make 5, this is great for society.
This is why we live in skyscrapers rather than huts. This is why I don't pay people to cut my grass with scissors.
> For hundreds of thousands of years, pre-historic man became very skilled at cutting rocks in order to make stone age tools....When metal working developed, all of the hundreds of thousands of years of skill in making stone tools was meaningless
Also that's all well and good, but people won't necessarily take their skills being obsoleted lightly, just shrug their shoulders and disappear into the sunset. It could get to the point (especially if predictions about A.I. replacing a large swatch of jobs turns out to be true) that the people will get violent if unemployment gets too high. Just look at riots in Greece (when youth unemployment was 50%)[1] or France[2] for just a couple of examples.
Granted, that's not going to happen with this particular layoff, especially with the unemployment rate at a low 3.5%, but if it gets back into the double digits, it starts becoming more likely.
This is probably the real reason we gave out stimulus and PPP loans at the beginning of the Covid pandemic - to stop people from being so jobless, broke, that they take it out on the government. Not out of empathy.
This is actually a great description of a fascinating topic to ponder further.
Someone will make 1000 shoes, all the same, poor quality, nowhere near the fit but they are 1000 shoes while it use to be 5.
Someone will make 1000 inferior loafs of bread. Someone will make 1000 mcdonalds quality hamburgers. Someone will build many crappy houses and stack them until they touch the sky. A box will play audio recordings to thousands while we use to sing and play instruments ourselves. A box will show pictures in stead of us reading books and giving speeches. Someone will also [kinda] have 1000 babies in stead of 5.
But we price everything at a point where profit is maxed for what people can afford and we buy 1000 things in stead of just the 5 we needed. If there is any room in the budget we will make housing more expensive.
A coworker of mine always has pain in uhhh all parts of his body, everything is sore and worn out.
One a year he goes back to his country of birth, by plane, by train, then by bus, then by taxi then he climbs the mountain. There is the tiny village where he was born. He drinks the spring water, sits in the sun under unpolluted air, eats real vegetables grown on real soil, eats meat from animals who had a good life, eggs from chickens roaming around, milk from happy cows, he takes in the view, talks with relatives. And then, gradually the pains go one by one, the headache clears up, the joins soften, the muscles work again, his head moves back above his shoulders, his eyes work again, he can walk tirelessly.
I'm not trying to make a point, it is just something to think about.
The changes were over hundreds if not thousands of years. Everyone had time to adapt. Here the people are just discarded.
I'm not saying we should keep inefficient work. The society hopefuly adapts and creates a safety net for upcoming changes. I'm pissimist, so I think more pain is coming and no way are we going to be allowed to have a repeat of 1917 in Russia. Just more rejects, outcasts and general misery.
> I don't care one iota about craftsmen who can no longer conduct their craft in the way they want because a better technology came around.
You'll care when they actively subvert the rollout of the new technology. If the technology truly benefits society more than it hurts the craftsman then you can share some of the gains with them so they too can benefit.
You are honestly arguing that if I create a better widget factory, I need to pay everyone else who owns the means of producing widgets in inferior ways some of my money?
Directly? Maybe not. But no man is an island, and no one's factory is a continent either. Your widget factory wasn't created by you ex nihilo, it's built on the labor and skills of people in your community, it is possible for it to exist and be profitable thanks to the larger society being what it is and generating wealth it does. It's in your interest to care that the society supporting you thrives, and if your factory is threatening to damage it, then even if you're 100% selfish, you owe it to yourself and your children to help mitigate it somehow.
No this article was about layoffs. The employee-employer relationship is very different the one between competing companies. If you have created a better widget factory and need 90% less staff, I do think you have some responsibility to those employees that are no longer needed.
>They get to restart at the junior level, with commensurate pay, while they retain their age
the alternative to this is gerontocracy and stagnation. We actually have a real world example of this, Japan. Seniority as a leading principle and the inability to fire in the name of social stability sounds great on a 10 year time horizon and appears empathetic, on a 50 year time horizon you are going to be poor compared to an economy that accepts (but ideally cushions) the fallout that comes with economic churn. In 1990 Japan's economy was 50% as large as the American economy. Today it's 19%.
Even if the luddite motivations are more reasonable than the popular image suggests, we are much better off not being stuck in an artisanal mode of production.
> Even if the luddite motivations are more reasonable than the popular image suggests, we are much better off not being stuck in an artisanal mode of production.
We really should aim for both. That the society as a whole is better off when it receives the benefits of creative destruction, it also has a moral obligation to make sure the "destruction" part is only shifting labor and expertise allocation - destroying ephemeral constructs like companies and brands, not actual lives.
It is a moral issue first and foremost, but we can't be burying our heads in the sand here and pretending we didn't know - the issue carries with it a real threat of those whose lives get destroyed rising up to tear down the civilization that crushed it. It's in everyone's self-interest to be on the side of the Luddites.
straw man analogy. yes, if your end goal is something crazy and unthinkable like functional society with less crime and full of happy, mentally healthy non stressed people. only then keeping people employed even if in some cases it is not the most ruthlessly financially effective thing to do can be desirable
Not saying downsizing does not make sense, but its a stretch to say that its a service to our society to downsize one's company.
> As a society we allow layoffs because it reallocates skilled workers to new areas that actually need them
This more sounds like a trap mindset to me to be honest. Its associating some sort of morality to what is just regular part of running a business. Companies do what's best for the company and its investors first and foremost.
> Are you suggesting that all corporations actions are based on morality?
I believe the suggestion is that they certainly should be based in some moral system. Corporations are a convenient fiction we use to shield the actual humans from the effects of the actions they collectively take.