[netrap]

>> Risks to jobs rarely feature among reported risks, despite being a prominent public concern.

If there is a risk to jobs, it wouldn't show up here since actually less jobs is "good" for business...

[SoftTalker]

> less jobs is "good" for business

Up to a point. Then you no longer have customers.

[ben_w]

Everyone is incentivised to do it, even when none of them want all of them to do it.

Prisoner's dilemma, with the businesses as the 'prisoners'.

One of the ways to change the Nash equilibrium for that game is for enough people to empower some outside agent that punishes defectors. (Metaphorically, for the original prisoners in the thought experiment, a gangland boss).

[nikolayasdf123]

I think about this all the time

[Nasrudith]

Pretty much everything good is good only 'up until a point'. The dose makes the poison after all.

[nine_k]

Lower expenses is good for business. Not having to pay employees lowers expenses.

But a business needs paying customers, preferably employed by someone else. Other businesses having to pay their employees is good for business in this regard.

[andsoitis]

Don’t forget also that the number of businesses isn’t finite.

[barbazoo]

Yeah, public concerns are often diametrically opposed to corporate concerns.

[psunavy03]

There's a reason Henry Ford paid his employees enough to buy one of his cars.

[tonyedgecombe]

It is a myth that it was so they could afford one of his cars.

The reality is that he couldn’t attract the right workers because factory work is sole destroying.