this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
952 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
3030 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Bill Gates says a 3-day work week where 'machines can make all the food and stuff' isn't a bad idea::"A society where you only have to work three days a week, that's probably OK," Bill Gates said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 262 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I don’t care what one of the richest people in the world thinks about labour and work/life balance. I care what the average person thinks.

But he’s right about this.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 93 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You should, because they are the ones who will be making the decisions.

[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Until enough of us say that we don’t care what they think, and we demand better.

[–] PHLAK@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Yes. That’s certainly one of the best ways.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unions are tragically toothless when the federal government can just decide a planned strike is illegal.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More unions need to coordinate and actually create threat of a general strike. The UAW ending their contract on May Day and calling for others to do the same actually seems like a pretty good way to leverage power. I don't think the government can move quick enough to block that kind of collective action.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Biden literally signed an executive order blocking railway workers from striking. If he has that kind of authority and is willing to use it in that way, then all he has to do is make an executive order declaring all strikes illegal. Also, not trying to be a naysayer, but a general strike is a pipe dream. You can barely get people in the same union to cooperate, let alone multiple unions cooperating for a general.

[–] sock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

yea! lets hope really hard and politicians might start taking hope as bribes for legislature

[–] RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

And their decisions equate to: how can we employ the fewest number of people with the least benefits and make the most profit off what we’re selling?

But definitely don’t consider that under- or unemployed people don’t have the money to spend on making those profits happen.

[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, every debate about reducing the number of cars always ends at something like "too many jobs are involved in the car industry, so we need to preserve these jobs, and also people need cars to go work in these factories". I feel like there will hardly be a deep environmental breakthrough if it doesn't come with a deep social change.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

I would rather work down the road at a bakery than drive to the next town to be an engineering apprentice.

Only one of them pays, however.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

"We're too deep in the hole we've dug for ourselves. Just keep digging and hope we eventually come out the other side." That's what that logic effectively equates to: doing the same stupid thing and hoping it eventually works out for you.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Companies would automate and save on employees, making people poor. Automation only makes sense if basic universal income is applied

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The “””end goal””” would be people working half the time, earning half the money, and stuff costing half as much to make and half as much to purchase.

The issue is we have to force them to translate the manufacturing cost decrease in a price decrease, or it’s never going to happen.

[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

A reduction in work hours is also a step forward until UBI is instated. If I make the same amount doing 4 or even 3 days of work in a week, while automation does the rest, that works for me. The idea is that people need to work less and make the same if not more. UBI or a reduction in work hours are both good paths forward. UBI being the ultimate goal.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If people are that poor they will just deautomate the machines in protest until UBI happens.

[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People don’t have that kind of power. Especially poor people.

[–] isles@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A person doesn't, but people certainly do. And a small number can do a surprising amount if they're coordinated enough.

[–] Bluehat@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The companies will decide the level of automation

But who will be able to purchase what the machines make?

[–] metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub 10 points 1 year ago

I don't care what he thinks, but I care that he has a platform that others in his class listen to and may respect. It's not a position you hear often from those with a lot of wealth. I'm ok with progress coming from any direction, even if it's self-serving in some form, and I do think it's self-serving.