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.

  • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    265
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

          • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

      • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bill Gates isn’t making the decisions anymore and hasn’t been for decades now

    • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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.

      • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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.

          • isles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      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.