Ford paid his workers well to prevent attrition and buy loyalty and increase turnover. The attrition rates were very high and it was costly to train new workers.
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/TefmTO8qxRHryL23mBhiHI/The-perils-of-Fordism-in-India.html Salil Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Mar 2016, at 22:25, Bruce A. Metcalf <brmetc...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > >> Posting this [1] on the only place I know where there are better minds than >> mine who can tell me not to worry so I can sleep better at night. > >> https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.4mn452rn9 > > It's easy to disregard such fearmongering, which has been going on since the > horse was replaced by steam power, and which received a boost when computers > proved practical. But such fundamental changes do have a remarkable impact on > the nature of work, and we do need to work hard to guide those changes into > the most desirable option possible. > > We just have to decide which that is. > > The author's call for Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a wise one, and that > would be my judgment even if we had no fear of encroaching automation. > Separating work from subsistence would permit a new perspective to develop in > society, and one I think would ultimately be of great benefit (after the pain > of transition wore off). > > But this would require we develop some means of taxing the use of such > automation so that governments have the wherewithal to pay for UBI. If it > instead is made to ride on the shoulders of those few with high-paying jobs, > the structure becomes unsound rather quickly. > > This suggests that UBI will fare far better in countries like Finland where > Big Industry and Big Government aren't sleeping with one another. In the US, > which is sliding rapidly into an oligarchy, it's quite possible that the > self-serving elite will exempt themselves from taxation, eviscerate the > movement toward UBI, and utterly impoverish the bulk of society. > > So, we have several options here: > > 1. Make UBI work. The burden of ensuring that corporations pay sufficient tax > to keep their nations populace alive will be great, but it's preferable to > option 2. If done carefully, this will cushion the blow by increasing the > cost of automation while lowering the salary demands of workers. It may well > be that automation (and its associated taxation) will prove to have a higher > cost than simply hiring humans. > > This is also important because even a fully automated business needs > customers, especially in a consumer-driven economy like most of us occupy. > Henry Ford was cited for paying his workers more than the prevailing wage so > that they could afford to buy his products. Had he not lead the way to higher > industrial wages, his enterprise would have foundered for lack of sales. > Automated industry must similarly be concerned that even with their economies > they do not price themselves above a falling market. > > 2. Don't make UBI work. The result will be vast discrepancies of wealth, with > the same social upheaval that's followed every prior instance of such an > arrangement. Yes, you could automate a police force and just keep shooting, > but would the surviving elite be able to keep the automated systems working > with such a small base? > > This structure could also fail of the elite don't build those "robo-cops". In > this scenario, the mobs with pitchforks and torches breach the Bastille, > destroy the automation (and those who could fix it), and throw society as a > whole into another dark age. Widespread death and a greatly reduced > population would result. > > 3. Don't make UBI work, but make it not work slowly, and effect a significant > reduction in population. China was on the smart road here for some time, but > cultural backlash and the growth of their middle class have obliged them to > surrender this battle. It is one worth resuming on all fronts, as nearly > every woe this world is prey to can be pinned, at some level, on > overpopulation. (See Stanley Schmidt on this topic.) > > So either we engineer a new social balance that maintains most of our > population, or we suffer from either a deliberate or consequent decimation > ... perhaps to a level that cannot sustain what we now consider civilization. > > Like any other tool, automation of jobs can be used for good or bad purposes. > Because it is so far-reaching, the care with which it needs to be > implemented, and the complexity of the compensating factors is so great, that > many will despair of this civilization working through to the end of it all. > > Me, I'm thinking it's time to start stockpiling pitchforks and torches; you > never know when they're going to come in handy! > > Cheers, > Bruce >
