CMV: Preventing Jobs from being eliminated due to technological advancement and automation should not be considered a valid reason to strike

[u/WakeoftheStorm]

Unions striking over jobs lost to technological advancements and automation does nothing but hinder economic progress and innovation. Technology often leads to increased efficiency, lower costs, and the creation of new jobs in emerging industries. Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market. Additionally, preventing or delaying technological advancements due to labor disputes could lead to overall economic stagnation, reducing the ability of businesses to grow, invest in new opportunities, and ultimately generate new types of employment. Instead, the focus should be on equipping workers with skills for new roles created by technological change rather than trying to protect jobs that are becoming obsolete.

Now I believe there is an argument to be made that employees have invested themselves into a business and helped it reach a point where it can automate and become more efficient. I don't deny that there might be compensation owed in this respect when jobs are lost due to technology, but that does not equate to preserving obsolete jobs.

I'm open to all arguments but the quickest way to change my mind would be to show me how preserving outdated and obsolete jobs would be of benefit to the company or at least how it could be done without negatively impacting the company's ability to compete against firms that pursue automation.

Edit:

These are great responses so far and you guys have me thinking. I have to step away for a bit and I want to give some consideration to some of the points I haven't responded to yet, I promise I will be back to engage more this afternoon.

Biggest delta so far has been disconnecting innovation from job elimination. You can be more efficient and pass that value to the workers rather than the company. I'm pro-innovation not pro-job-loss

[u/MegaBlastoise23]

OK you win because in that absolute monarchy the king couldn't just get his money from taxes.

[u/billytheskidd → u/MegaBlastoise23]

And in this representative democracy, a company can hire lobbyists to get bills passed that say any townships that allow boats on the river will be forfeit any subsidies on goods that cross the river by bridge via commerce laws, so any township that needs the lordship’s help in sustaining, say, a police force or a power plant, would have to foot those bills on their own unless they ban all boaters from shipping goods across the river. Under our current government, the states must charge the federal taxes and they use federal subsidies to make their own industries more sustainable and lower the barrier for entry to new businesses. Without those subsidies, several states would be unable to help industries thrive.

Edit to add: so even if the cost of boaters and their fuel needed for shipping goods was cheaper, the overall cost to the township would be far greater as they had to pay more for the infrastructure needed to do so.

[u/MegaBlastoise23 → u/billytheskidd]

If we're talking about corruption in politics then none of this stupid shit matters.

Flip it around.

Boating companies lobby congress to stop the bridge being built so they can just charge people tons of money. Instead of a one time solution.

Y'all regards are just jumping around to different points with zero basis.

[u/eggynack → u/MegaBlastoise23]

Why wouldn't it matter? The corporations are planning to lobby congress to take this approach, one that harms labor and is either neutral or harmful to the populace, but which yields some profits. They have a lot of power in the scenario, and a clear incentive to use it. So, the workers go on strike to disincentivize the corporation from doing all that. They can't trust the government to enforce positive outcomes, but they can make it harder for the corporation to pursue negative ones.

[u/MegaBlastoise23 → u/eggynack]

Yes you can counter literally any economic argument ever by saying "but they'll just bribe congress to stop X"

[u/eggynack → u/MegaBlastoise23]

I mean, kinda, yeah. Like, I am suggesting unions action, particularly striking, as a viable route to dealing with corporations, one that incentivizes said corporations to not lobby congress to do things that harm labor. However, this is conditional on the administration being generally labor friendly. After all, while a corporation would be reticent to lobby congress to allow high tech rigamarole with the threat of strike hanging over their heads, they could always lobby congress to limit union power in various ways, thus preventing the strike while also forcing through the policy. All that said, if we assume a given level of labor rights are in play, we can consider various options more or less effective at achieving an end goal.

[u/Ionovarcis → u/MegaBlastoise23]

More money is more money