Some do, some don't. And not all people can be retrained for a new and different job. That takes time, money, and aptitude, which is something not everyone has.

There was a time when coal mines were being shut down - a good thing right?. And 1000's of miners were losing their jobs left and right and families were homeless and starving. Whole towns and cities were losing population as jobs were lost. The economic impact was felt up and down "Main Street".

There was a large cry that something must be done! An idea took hold that we should retrain all these coal miners for a new career. The Federal government even got involved with educational grants. The idea was to train people to code because well, the world needed a lot of coders, the pay was good, and the miners would have a better life - A win for all. And everyone in the rest of the world felt good about it and went back to their lives.

Turns out, coal miners don't really have a suitable and transferable skill set to learn coding. Nor is it very effective to teach a 50 year old how to code from scratch. And even if you were one of the lucky few to manage succeed at it, now AI threatens your livelihood.

The moral of the story is: Things change, the world changes. There are a lot fewer places large numbers of people can go to so they can start over. The skills barrier is a lot higher than it was when "cigarette girls" were a thing and that barrier just gets higher everyday. And frankly, not many cigarette girls were capable of learning the newest skills to get a different and hopefully better job. So now what do we do?

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A number of additional morals can be pulled as well. A few quick ones:

Decisions about what careers others should do won't provide motivation.

Social safety nets need to be stronger so polluting industries can be shutdown without negativity impacting the workers.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

All nice thoughts. And I agree with them.

But the "smart" people are always willing to tell others what to do - it's their job you know.

And I wouldn't hold your breath about "safety nets" anytime soon. Resources aren't unlimited and greed to prevent that net is eternal.

And government tends to not do broad social policy well. They are stuck with "one size fits all" solutions out of necessity. And the more granular those polices get, the more byzantine the rules get. Plus by the time there is wide social approval to do something, the moment has passed and the world is now worse off.

Shuttering whole industries quickly, (a generation or less time frame), is how you create a huge population of "angry refugees" without homes or jobs as they try to move to other places to try and not starve. This seldom works out well for anyone.

The tried and true methods humanity has historically used to solve social upheaval are: Starvation and death where you are at. Moving to new lands that have few to no one else living there. War to eliminate surplus populations.

Since no one wants to starve where they are and there are currently no new lands to settle, my money at this moment is on War. It will, unfortunately, solve a lot of current issues caused by excess populations - at least for a while.