• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 months ago

    I guarantee that there was some wage that would’ve kept those employees on the job. It might have been unpalatably high for the people in charge, but it certainly existed.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Personally I’d rather see those jobs done by robots. No one wants that job, let the robot do it.

    • m0darn
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m not sure it’s that simple. I think if you offered someone 150k to do the job, they’d do it for long enough to build some savings then quit and live off of that while they found something more fulfilling to do.

      I think that really the only way to keep people in that job is for them to have terrible alternatives.

      The job was to put a small piece of metal into a machine (brake press), push a button, and take the now slightly bent piece of metal out of the machine.

      The metal is part of a hinge for something like a knee brace. The factory makes a bunch of metal components for different things but didn’t make the whole knee brace.

      I guess the company could try to get a higher price for the part, or just say they don’t want that contract… but people need knee braces. So yeah, I don’t feel bad about selling them a robot. Some jobs are just better done by machines. The issue is wealth concentration.

      Maybe a worker’s council could have found a way to make the job less bad.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Wanting to automate something because it’s better/cheaper is very different from falsely claiming that there’s a “labor shortage” because they allegedly can’t find anybody to do the job, though. There’s no need for them to be fucking self-servingly dishonest about it.