Raw LLM Responses

id argue that it does not remove incentives for automation. Currently, stockholders and capitalism demands infinite growth, assuming workers are always chosen over machines, you will eventually run out of workers to hire, and you will HAVE to automate, and/or become more efficient per worker in order to continue that growth. Arguably this more risks overworking and/or underpaying employees, but at least you provide a hypothetical minimum. Also, it depends on the ratio set. Currently cashiers are getting replaced in supermarkets by machines because of a rough calculation of "a machine costs 15k (or whatever it costs) and lasts 15 years, vs an employee that costs 15k minimum for less hours and needs that every single year you keep them hired. if you set the ratio to where there doesnt end up being any difference in cost for a company to pick a person over a machine, they would STILL pick the machine usually because you dont need to deal with the problems people come with. no need for workers rights, no need for unions, no need for accommodating maternity/paternity leave or holidays or sick time, you cant overwork a machine. there would need to be a bias in the ratio of "its much more expensive to use a machine, and isnt worth the extra cost to get the freedoms a machine gives us, we will just pay a person to do it" but striking the balance is obviously hard, and it can be hard to class "what is automation?" Because even with a cashier, does the electronic register that keeps track of all the transactions take away a job that would be tracked by a person? or is it a tool used by the employee? just because a technician can keep 5 machines running, does that mean there are no jobs being taken away? or do those 5 machines taking them even though you might not hire a person to do the simple task they do?