CEOs are hugely expensive. Why not automate them?
If a single role is as expensive as thousands of workers, it is surely the prime candidate for robot-induced redundancy.
Seriously, I want every journalist to ask this question from the New Statesman:
> CEOs are hugely expensive. Why not automate them?
To CEOs, to corporate boards, to government lawmakers. To anyone who advocates bringing bullshit "AI" automation into an existing business.
I predict that any justification that works for "oh we can't automate CEOs", will work even better for the actual workers. Press them until that is crystal clear to your audience.
And any remaining "justifications", I further predict will be flawed nonsense that justify nothing.
I think @DeanBaker13 recently listed the salaries for CEOs of car companies in the US and Europe
and the American CEOs, whose companies are on avg no better or worse, are paid a LOT more
@failedLyndonLaRouchite@bignose@kcarruthers Yes, U.S. auto company CEOs get four times the pay as their European counterparts and five times the pay of their Japanese counterparts. Pretty hard to justify.
@kcarruthers I was saying similar things when it came to the writers and actors strikes. If anyone in that industry could be replaced by AI, it's the studio heads.
@kcarruthers And it would be much easier to automate! Or do you think anyone could distinguish whether the powerpoints about “strategy” were created by an MBA or an AI?
surely with as much actual time as most CEOs spend on useful work, CEOaS (CEO as a service), shared across multiple companies, would be a better use of their "valuable" time and company money. ;)
@kcarruthers The debate about public/private ownership is more relevant than ever. The question is not “should jobs be automated?” because private business WILL automate as much as they can. The question is “when jobs are automated, what happens?” Production becomes very cheap, right? So now the concept of “work” (which is not the purpose of life) has been turned upside down, how does society take advantage of this to improve everyone’s lives? That’s what the debate should be.
Have you people actually met executives? I work with many, and some could have been automated in the 90's. As others have said, this is all about power and structure maintenance, not payment. The illusion is up. Why do you think their compensation has become even more egregious? The illusion. Is up.
It's the BOTTOM line that has applied. Its the other that applies. They ain't going anywhere.
@kcarruthers And what makes you think an AI boss would be any better than a human one? I imagine they might be even more ruthless when it comes to cuts and layoffs.
Well we already have CEOs that one morning have the notion that all the people doing the actual work are expendable, especially when the alternative is the CEO's own job.
If AI as we have it really was a thing then it's bound to suffer from bouts of existential violence.
@kcarruthers
I've often thought this would be a terrific idea.
I worked as a scientific professional in the public service & after seeing how well everything worked after the dept boss went on extended leave, most of us questioned why he bothered to come back.
His bosses seemed to agree. He was "promoted sideways" & never replaced. Everything worked smoothly.
For many CEOs, I doubt you'd need a robot replacement; a cardboard cutout would probably do just as well & be much cheaper!
@kcarruthers
I CANT EVEN
I’m a school teacher on £28k and very resentful reading this! Surfing and reading. Automating execs cannot happen fast enough.
Of course, my job will be automated eventually too and teachers will just be childminders.
After the coding is developed you could offer “upgrades” such as the “pump and dump” plug-in. It would automatically send press releases to promote the company stock with fluff announcements then automatically sell CEO stock options when the share price peaks (but before the market realizes that no value had been added to the company).
Add comment