Luddite Fallacy Case Study

870 Words4 Pages
The first solution to this problem is to state that the threat of technological unemployment is another case of the Luddite Fallacy and do nothing. The Luddite Fallacy, named after the group of English textile workers who smashed industrialised looms in protest against the new machines that took their jobs. The fallacy is that the concerns involving long term unemployment due to technology do not include compensation within the economy, such as new jobs, increased specialization, and higher wages for all workers. The evidence for supporters of the Luddite fallacy is based on the Industrial Revolution, where the mechanization of farm work made it so that less people were needed to grow food and can specialize in factory jobs. The outcome of…show more content…
This would make it possible for the Canadian government to implement development plans on phasing in technologies at a gradual pace. Workers would then be able to more easily transition into a workplace where automation is prevalent. However, the plan runs the risk of creating technological stagnation as there would be no incentive for those to create innovative technologies. The plan also depends on foreign nations to implement similar plans. Canada alone limiting automation within its borders would make it unable to stay economically competitive with other nations as they would have access to faster and better technologies as dictated by Moore’s Law. This also creates a risk that citizens in Canada will emigrate to other nations that are more technologically…show more content…
The concept of a basic income means that all Canadian citizens are guaranteed an income that is given unconditionally, without tests or work requirements. This can also be expanded to individuals with Permanent Resident status depending on implementation. In relation to an expanded automated workforce, this would mean that Canadian workers would still be able to support themselves even if they find themselves structurally unemployable. The first obstacle towards the idea of basic income is the stigma that is associated with unemployment. Unemployment to some people means that one’s financial security is dependent on “handouts” from the government, lack skills that make one employable, and lack purpose in life. Basic income requires Canadians that lose their job to automation to accept that it is not through a fault of their own. The income that they receive could be used to invest in other pursuits such as creative ventures, low level entrepreneurship, or a chance to upgrade and earn new skills for the modern workforce. The next obstacle toward basic income is the cost of supplying every Canadian with a livable income. Livable income must first be determined with a form of measure such as the OECD Low Income Measure. The most obvious ways of alleviating the cost of basic income is the elimination of redundant government programs such as Employment Insurance, Old Age Security, Social

    More about Luddite Fallacy Case Study

      Open Document