Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: morrisbj
Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, automation can increase productivity as machines can run 24/7 with some maintenance and lower operating costs by reducing headcount (labor). But, again, the point goes sailing high over your head. We've seen the numbers of this "recovery" and the job gains aren't there (unless you throw in the greatly increasing size of our government) and neither are the workers' wages (and certainly not the benefits). The only ones benefiting in this "recovery" are the corporate execs and political campaign funds.
Conjur, while I agree that labor has become undervalued, I don't think automation is the biggest threat to working class America. It is outsourcing and "Wal-Martization". While initially automation has always eliminated a few jobs, there always seems to be some new job that comes along, whether related to the automation process or not, there is demand for labor. Where we are getting screwed is that now a large portion of our automated manufacturing is being done in other countries, completely taking us out of the loop.
It's hard to ignore Mr. High-Horse Vic but I couldn't let his insinuation go without a response.
But, yes, I agree with you. I was just trying to get across that Vic was wrong in his insinuation that automation results in no job losses whatsoever. That's a ridiculous stance.
Automation is a boon to a corporation but it takes time for the lost jobs to reappear in another form somewhere else down the line. It's far from an immediate replacement.
The US is losing out in multiple ways, as you pointed out. That's something lost on those up here that keep wearing their rose-coloured glasses 24/7.
Actually, the replacement occurs prior to. For example, a company contracts for new software for increased automation. The software developers work to build the software prior to implementation and any subsequent job loss caused by automation. The engineers build the new robot before it gets into the factory.
Did I argue that automation "results in no job losses whatsoever"? No. I argued that automation creates a net jobs increase through increased production and efficiency. But obviously some people are going to lose their jobs and have to seek employment elsewhere. When the buggy-whip company becomes obsolete and goes out business, its workers need to find new jobs. <troll snipped>
You're assuming a helluva lot there. Those software developers and manufacturing jobs were already in place. They didn't appear after the automation removed jobs from the workforce. You're trying to engage in a bit of revisionism there. But, that's nothing new from you.
Automation is a boon to everyone. How much would your car cost if every part were manufactured and assembled by hand? Your computer? How much more would your house cost if every board was hand-planed? Or there were no nail guns? Would you be willing to pay for these things, or would you just whine all the more about the evil corporations?
Cars were made by hand long ago and only cost a couple hundred dollars. Your point?
Really, if the US is losing out, it's because of propagandist like myself. I have no clue what I'm talking about, I just like to rabble-rouse.
Agreed.
I think there are a few points both you guys are missing. I agree with Vic, automation is a good thing, and should create more jobs, and more and better goods for consumers. Why? Because automation obviously increases effeciency. As a whole, the more efficient we use our energy and resources, the more goods we can obtain, and those goods should be of better quality.
Although, there are at least two barriers that can, and do, prevent these benefits of automation from happening, and I think these two things are what you two, conjur and vic, are ignoring, or missing. One, in order to increase the amount of jobs (or to at least maintain a healthy number of them), not only do companies have to better themselves, but employees, our work force, must be more educated and better skilled. Because the vast majority of jobs that automation can create are higher-skilled jobs that require higher-skilled and better-educated employees compared to what the automation itself took over. The automation should be doing the "dirty work," while human workers concentrate on things automation cannot yet do (and then in x point in time, moonbeam's words will come true).
Conjur is correct that automation is putting people out of work, but he is correct only because people have allowed technology to be more skilled than they are, and that is pathetic because computers are actually very stupid.
The other thing that prevents this natural process is government and corporate corruption in regards to allowing and/or creating unfair competition. The lack of healthy competition is a sword in the heart of capitalism, and certainly can and does decrease the benefits consumers and employees should be receiving via the efficiency of automation. I think we should all be fairly familiar with this.