Yet, they keep on doing it. It sounds like the alternative is worse.
Yet, they keep on doing it. It sounds like the alternative is worse.
Landowners needed armies of peasants to till their land, because argiculture was very inefficient, and you needed the labour of five farm workers to grow enough food to feed 7 people.
Now that even a third-world farmer can produce enough food to feed many, many people, those farm workers have been pushed to try to find work in the cities - hence, factories and sweatshops.
You are looking at the tail end of the problem, as opposed to the root of it. The core of it is that the vast majority of people in the world need to work for someone else (Who reaps the majority of the economic windfall) in order to survive. This used to happen because a small minority of people owned most of the land - it now happens because a small minority of people own most of the capital needed to run a business.
Employee-owned co-operatives are a solution to the problem of both jobs, and working conditions. Since co-ops don't pay dividends to non-working shareholders, this is generally unpalatable to capitalists.
Improved agriculture required fewer people to generate the same amount of food. We were lucky that industrialization happened at around the same time and could provide work for the displaced farm workers. There isn't any guarantee that some new type of labour-intensive job will be invented just at the point that AI becomes widespread.
I don't see how co-operatives help if there isn't any demand for their output.
I'm sure that came off wrong. I guess, you meant the abortions, which is, to me, slightly less controversial than suicide or worse. Death by abortion might be a conflation of terms, in some value system, so the comment is confusing. I guess it's provocative on purpose. I agree, there must be better alternatives to sweatshops.