Technological innovations have never meant less work for the worker. It's the bosses/company that benefit from being able to squeeze you that little bit more.

Want to do less work? Join a union and campaign for a 4-day work week or something. If the productivity benefit from AI is real, there's no reason you shouldn't be paid the same for less time because your output is the same/better.

▲

bemtevi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> If the productivity benefit from AI is real, there's no reason you shouldn't be paid the same for less time because your output is the same/better.

That reasoning makes sense in a world where people are paid in proportion to the value they create. But it doesn't make sense in a world where supply and demand determine the price paid for something. Because if you can do the same work in less time in means you've actually increased the supply of producing things and thus decreased its worth.

	▲	Buttons840 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There's no real reason why we work a standard 40 hours. We just wanted it, so we setup our society to work that way. I want to work 30 hours a week. Do you want to work 30 hours a week? It's okay to just vote for the things you want. So many people make their voting decisions based on, like, whether or not billionaires will leave the state, but--again--it's okay to just vote for things that benefit you personally. Who told you to worry about billionaires, and why did you let them influence you that way? The billionaires will be fine.

▲

procaryote 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> there's no reason you shouldn't be paid the same for less time because your output is the same/better.

The reason is economic growth for the company / the country.

This in turn is a more subtle point than it seems at first glance. Not having economic growth isn't really a desirable option for a company, a country, or in (the long run) the people involved.