Unlike Thomas Lunde, the item in the following that caught my attention
was "with the threat of 'automation.'"
>Gail Stewart wrote under the thread Basic Income:
>"In the early 1970's in Canada, with the threat of
>"automation" in the offing, the social policy struggle at
>departmental level was between income maintenance on the one
>hand and community employment on the other.
I am interested in documenting specific instances where the advantages of
automation were actually weighed against the social costs of unemployment
(or income maintenance). I am especially interested in any instances where
people were specifically kept employed, and automation avoided (or
incorporated in such a way as not to require layoffs). But I am mainly
just interested in learning what the arguments were, pro and con in
ACTUAL situations.
I believe that such a discussion went on in the early days in Detroit, and
that certain auto manufacturers (I don't know who) initally decided to
keep people employed rather than bring in automation, since laying off
auto workers was laying off auto purchasers too. I also thought this was
said to be one reason Japan, who went early into robotic manufacturing,
lept into the automaking lead for a while.
But that may all be myth.
So, can Gail Stewart tell me more about that policy discussion? And can
others give me actual examples of other instances where such a discussion
took place?
Failing actual facts, more rumors will also do!
