Hiring someone isn’t a lifetime promise. If a robot mower replaces three workers, that’s a choice, not a crime. Forcing the job to continue is the real force.
The story
AI-ish tells:
– Too tidy: roofer, robot, principle, software, each in the same clean block.
– Stock bridges: “Now scale it up,” “Which brings me to.”
– Abstract phrases: “voluntary exchange,” “normal market call.”
– Canned debate line: “But automation feels different!”
– Concrete taco opening fades into policy talk.
🟢 The Roofer, The Robot, and Your Right to Say “No Thanks”
I keep chewing on this: if I hire a roofer and my budget gets bonked, or I find someone I like more, or tacos start calling my name, I can end the deal if our contract allows it. No cops. No roof court. Yay, adults making agreements.
Same lawn, bigger mower. I run a lawn-care business: five employees, growing nicely. Then a robot rolls in doing the work of three people for less money, smug little Roomba-with-blades.
Do I owe three humans paychecks forever because I hired them once? I’m not seeing it, outside the notice and terms we agreed to up front.
That may sting. People matter. Treating them with care matters. And an employer still isn’t a parent. A paycheck isn’t a lifetime promise with a bow on it.
The core is choice. Customers pick a business. The business picks tools and people. Workers pick where to sell their time and skill. When law forces the relationship to continue, the force is the new move. Not the layoff.
“But automation feels different!” I get the feeling. The stomach makes a little error sound. Still, a robot mower is a tool. So is a spreadsheet. So is the hammer, which was rough news for Team Rock.
Same for software workers. If machines can write, review, and ship code, a company choosing them is making a plain market call about cost, speed, and scarce dollars. Uncomfortable? Yep. A moral violation? I’m not finding it.
If this itch interests you, I wrote more in “The Extinction of Software.” Come poke the idea with me.
Recent Comments