Remember, kids: don’t try this at home!
If they used to be houses, then they are were-houses.
If it used to be a house, then it’s a was-house.
Usually what the owner class does is push for tougher laws instead
Burn baby burn. Disco inferno! Burn baby burn!
The ESG that the right deserves
you’d be replaced with robots even sooner
Remember, kids: don’t try this at home!
Yeah! Try it at a factory
Finally, a sensible market solution /s
Right. A more likely one is that having staff in a building at all are a liability and so all these warehouses are moving to robots. There will be an oversaturation of warehouse workers vs sites still using them, and so these fires are just going to bring wages lower.
I’ve said that on Reddit and people got mad at me.
A single warehouse burning because of low wages is like a single healthcare CEO getting shot: Funny to read about, but ultimately not going to change much.
Turn it into a monthly thing, and it becomes a revolutionary act that will change things!
I’ve said that on Reddit and
peoplebots got mad at me.FTFY.
That’s right, kids: try it at work!
Hypothetically, I really hope this happens. Hypothetically, like once a week for the next year.
If the cost of keeping humans is higher than the cost of automating, they’ll just automate the process. Or have the place ran by wire, where humans pilot lifts remotely.
If they could, they’d already have.
There’s plenty of technology that could be, but isn’t yet because the incentives aren’t there.
If we turned all this wasted ingenuity towards the betterment of humankind, then everything could get much better very quickly.
Depending on which oligarch you believe, we’re just about there. General purpose humanoid robots are almost ready to take over warehouse work
I am sure they are as almost ready as the swasticar autopilot
For 200 years, workers have been told that automation will make their lives better…
You can burn down an automated warehouse too.
Honestly probably easier as there are less eyes. Just walk in with a clip board and say your from XYZ company and you have a contract to service the robots. If they seem hesitant at first, immediately get irate and say the contract is hourly and your technically already on the clock. In 98% of circumstances this will be your ticket in, if not try again on a different day of the week two weeks later.
Then just leave behind some incendiary devices as your “servicing the robots” and now not only did you burn the warehouse down, they also have no clue who you even are.
“Hence the word…‘sabotage.’”
(Note: this probably isn’t true)
There were only 8 people in that whole warehouse when it burned. It clear they already cut staff to an insanely low level. If they could have automated those 8 jobs away, they already would have.
Stop preemptively giving up your power by assuming you have none.
So better be a slave than unemployed?
Unions were the compromise between violence against the capital from the working class.
Too bad companies spent decades demoting and crushing them. Paid money for it, even.
The same Pinkertons that were hired over a century ago to bust unions, are still around today for a reason.
Every few generations everyone seems to forget the existing social contracts exist for reason, and that reason is never the benevolence of the plutocrats.
So they run without insurance, lobby to mitigate their liability and the conditions of workplaces plummets.
I’m not a lawyer, but this sounds perfectly feasible to me. So insurance companies simply choose to not treat low wages as a risk factor. I wonder why 🤔
Ironically, arson is a felony and it’s unlikely that insurers cover such events that are due to criminal acts.
Insurers are likely not paying out anything.
New armchair expert topic just dropped
Yeah have someone burn down your house and then file an insurance claim.
See how that goes for you.
If you set a fire or otherwise intentionally cause your home to be burned down, then no insurance would not cover that. However in this case it is arson committed against the owner of the property, which is absolutely covered by insurance.
What? No. Arson usually covered on standard policies. Most likely what would happen in the scenario portrayed here is that insurance would go up and future insurance contracts would specifically exclude arson / vandalism.
What are you smoking? Insurance pays for damage caused by criminal activities
This is only the case when one intentionally burns down their own property.
