How are machines ruining the livelihood?
Pls help guys
Answers
Answered by
1
Answer:
Many people who have had steady jobs for 20 or 30 years have lost them or are at risk to losing them due to disruption or innovation (or foreign competition). But also many business owners have failed and lost not only their income but substantial investments trying to run a wide range of businesses from restaurants to dry cleaners to auto companies to Enron and WorldCom. Should we protect all these people from losses too?
Many people lose their jobs through no fault of their own - sometimes due to factors such as economic slowdowns or poor management decisions.
We do have some safety nets in place to help people who lose their jobs - such as unemployment insurance, which is designed to help cover basic living expenses for a short period of time while laid-off employees find other work. And there are subsidized job training programs available too to help people find jobs in other industries.
By asking about "destroying livelihoods" by disrupting industries, you're only look at one side of the coin. Any time you disrupt an industry you're making the lives of many other people better by offering them a better product or service at a lower cost.
Walmart is one example of a company that disrupted the retail industry, although more through its business model than its technology. While Walmart has put many thousands of smaller retailers out of business, there are many positive things it has done that people don't often like to talk about. Now in many towns there's a gigantic store that has most things that a typical household needs in one place (including food) that is open 24/7 and has lower prices than any other store. While the loss of jobs is certainly something that many people mourn, the rest of society is able to do their shopping at one place, saving a lot of time and gasoline, and they're paying a lot less for what they're buying because of Walmart's efficiencies and purchasing power.
Holding back disruptive technology and innovation to "protect jobs" is tantamount to cheating the rest of society from experiencing the benefits that the new technology would bring. And the innovation will find a way to come to market somewhere in the world. Job protection and stifling innovation has been a historically poor policy. The case of Argentina demonstrates what happens when a country engages in widescale protectionism:
Write it shortly!!!
Many people who have had steady jobs for 20 or 30 years have lost them or are at risk to losing them due to disruption or innovation (or foreign competition). But also many business owners have failed and lost not only their income but substantial investments trying to run a wide range of businesses from restaurants to dry cleaners to auto companies to Enron and WorldCom. Should we protect all these people from losses too?
Many people lose their jobs through no fault of their own - sometimes due to factors such as economic slowdowns or poor management decisions.
We do have some safety nets in place to help people who lose their jobs - such as unemployment insurance, which is designed to help cover basic living expenses for a short period of time while laid-off employees find other work. And there are subsidized job training programs available too to help people find jobs in other industries.
By asking about "destroying livelihoods" by disrupting industries, you're only look at one side of the coin. Any time you disrupt an industry you're making the lives of many other people better by offering them a better product or service at a lower cost.
Walmart is one example of a company that disrupted the retail industry, although more through its business model than its technology. While Walmart has put many thousands of smaller retailers out of business, there are many positive things it has done that people don't often like to talk about. Now in many towns there's a gigantic store that has most things that a typical household needs in one place (including food) that is open 24/7 and has lower prices than any other store. While the loss of jobs is certainly something that many people mourn, the rest of society is able to do their shopping at one place, saving a lot of time and gasoline, and they're paying a lot less for what they're buying because of Walmart's efficiencies and purchasing power.
Holding back disruptive technology and innovation to "protect jobs" is tantamount to cheating the rest of society from experiencing the benefits that the new technology would bring. And the innovation will find a way to come to market somewhere in the world. Job protection and stifling innovation has been a historically poor policy. The case of Argentina demonstrates what happens when a country engages in widescale protectionism:
Write it shortly!!!
Similar questions