It's an interesting thing to wish for, I guess. Anyone can make any story about the distant future. Personally, I hope we can have Stargates.
That sounds like generalized complaining. Are you arguing for anything, or just saying everything anyone might think about trying is off-limits because
Isn't it possible that we don't need The Davis Bacon Act, which was enacted to protect white union members from having to compete with black workers on highway construction projects? Is "race to the bottom" really a counter-argument to the re-examination of The Davis Bacon Act?
What keeps a competitor from setting up a similar robotic production line and selling goods for less? Why wouldn't prices drop due to competition?
So? Times change. Why shouldn't we re-examine old laws in the face of a new problem? Maybe unemployment is a bigger concern than some protection enacted to help, for example, 1930s coal miners?
That "drop" is an unemployed person who finally found a job. Why doesn't he or she matter?
We should re-examine (not necessarily "cut") parts of these:
- The Davis Bacon Act
- The Lacey Act
- The National Labor Relations Act
- The Americans With Disabilities Act
- The Controlled Substances Act
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- The Family and Medical Leave Act
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII
- The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
That's just a starting list. There are numerous state and local laws that make employing people more expensive and risky.
Robots are not covered by any of these acts. Companies choosing robots over people are not burdened by the cost of complying with these acts. You can't argue that a minority person won't be able to get a job because of discrimination when you're also arguing they won't be able to get a job because robots took away all the jobs.
It's interesting that you're worried about worker protections based on problems from the past, often things from 50 or 75 years ago. Meanwhile, the topic is about some distant future where no one can get a job due to automation. Why can't we re-examine laws when circumstances change?
As automation lowers the cost of producing goods toward zero, a smaller wage should buy more goods and living standards can improve even as wages go down.
(Of course, this whole discussion is silly because automation is as limited as anything else. But if you believe in automation replacing almost everyone, then you have to also accept that it will drastically cut the costs of goods.)
I'm not sure how that is an argument for artificially keeping people unemployed between now and whatever distant future you imagine. Wages could be higher if non-wage costs associated with employing someone or doing business were lower -- of course this depends on the supply of people to do the job.
Is there really an argument against considering changes to laws to help employers employ people?
Maybe we should re-examine every law, regulation, and employer mandate that makes it more expensive or more risky to hire people or conduct business that would employ people?
If you set 11000 Libraries of Congress on fire, it would be enough to put the fire out.
Who do you think are the victims of crimes in Chicago?
What's the best outfit to wear when talking to dogs?
You probably shouldn't want to influence the world. People who would say they "want to influence the world" generally lack the humility needed to avoid accidentally or recklessly making things worse for the world as a result of their influence.
There are only 3 hard drive makers left. Hitachi is not one of them.
They already forcibly herd all the kids together in the government schools to infect each other with diseases and bring them home to infect the adult population. If you want to keep the government out of your body, then you need to get it out of your family, away from your children, and out of your business.