Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher recognition.

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: morrisbj

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The means of production will soon be too complex to maintain or design by humans. Moore's Law tells us that, our fabulous rush to productivity. The end of work arrives with the advent of intelligent machines. Prepare to live a life without productive meaning. The Zen master, however, may buy your tea cup, if you happen to be a pottery master.

Communism will look a lot better when you have infinite wealth and the machine looks at you and says, "Hey, What's in this for me?"

In our beautiful world you can be anything you want, provided it's something that makes you money. You trade the tick of your short wound clock for money, and do so with pride. For welfare you sell your life. What a deal.

Is there a special school you go to to learn how to talk like that???

Eschew obfuscation my friend.... eschew obfuscation

Oh yes there is such a school. Perhaps you'll hear the bell were you to die to yourself. It is a presumptuous person who judges not his own judgment. It never occurred to you there were schools beyond your level with knowledge to teach beyond your comprehension.

The school is invisible to you so for you it does not exist. But you can tell yourself that ignorance is bliss.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...wtf? Where did I lie? Care to point that out to me?

That handbuilt cars ever cost a couple hundred dollars. Not even taking into account inflation (which you intentionally didn't), that never happened, as I pointed out.

How much was a Model T in the 1920s, eh?

But, I think you're catching on a bit. You see, I threw back at you what you were tossing out there: your posts are assuming WAY too much and ignoring other factors that come into play. I thought turnabout was fair play. Now, take that incisive critical thinking you just employed and apply it to your own posts and you'll approach a closer picture of reality.

Pal, you're so far away from reality it's not even funny.

Yeah....right.


And I ain't your pal.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...wtf? Where did I lie? Care to point that out to me?

That handbuilt cars ever cost a couple hundred dollars. Not even taking into account inflation (which you intentionally didn't), that never happened, as I pointed out.

How much was a Model T in the 1920s, eh?

Who cares? Did it have seatbelts? An air conditioner? A radio? Air bags? Power steering? The Northstar System?

 

[charrison]

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.

Automation has killed far more manufacting jobs than walrmart or outsourcing. Automation is even killing manufacting jobs in china as well.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjurThe US unemployment rate is over 5%. Don't forget, the method is no longer the same and it does not account for the drop in the labor participation rate and does not reflect those working multiple part-time jobs with no benefits for economic reasons.

The unemployment rate is 5.0% as of november.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

You may want to provide us information on when they changed their participation rules. afaik the rules have been in place for a long time.

It's been posted before but I can't find it right now.

Also, one must take into account the aging of our population and how that affects the unemployment rate:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-15.html


And, I'll note your ignoring of the Labor Participation Rate. Must be because you know you can't spin that one.

There is not much to spin, it about 1% different than the peak of the dot com bubble. This is hardly enough to cry doom and gloom about.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...wtf? Where did I lie? Care to point that out to me?

That handbuilt cars ever cost a couple hundred dollars. Not even taking into account inflation (which you intentionally didn't), that never happened, as I pointed out.

How much was a Model T in the 1920s, eh?

Who cares? Did it have seatbelts? An air conditioner? A radio? Air bags? Power steering? The Northstar System?

GPS? built in tv/dvd?

And you still dont want to adjust that price with inflation....

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur

I'm addressing your insinuation that automation does not result in job loss. That is a patently absurd suggestion.

Do you have any idea how many jobs have been 'eliminated' by automation since just a couple hundred years ago? I'll give you a clue, it is in the millions. By your doctrine everyone would be unemployed and broke by now. Empirically we know that is far from the case. You might want to revise your thesis.

check mate

There is absolutely no argument you can make if you're refuted epirically by history. Saying that automation is bad because ultimately noone will have jobs is a fallacy, otherwise global unemployment would be massive.

People tend to resist automation because it displaces people for some amout of time. but insinating that the displacement is permanent is just moronic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...wtf? Where did I lie? Care to point that out to me?

That handbuilt cars ever cost a couple hundred dollars. Not even taking into account inflation (which you intentionally didn't), that never happened, as I pointed out.

How much was a Model T in the 1920s, eh?

Who cares? Did it have seatbelts? An air conditioner? A radio? Air bags? Power steering? The Northstar System?

Hell, they didn't even have brakes. The hand crank starter could break your arm. It had a whopping 20hp. But more to the point, Model T's were not "handbuilt." They were built on an automated mass production line, the first of any car. I already mentioned Ford to conjur, I wonder if he even reads my posts. Prior to the Model T, cars were handbuilt, and only the richest could afford them.

Oh, and they sold for $850 base which, adjusted for inflation, would be the equivalent of about $17,000 today. So the price of brand new cars hasn't really changed over the decades (a Model T was definitely an economy car in its time, the first of all economy cars in fact), but in part automation has enabled consumers to purchase an infinitely safer, faster, and most comfortable car for about the same price through increases in productivity and efficiency.

Does someone lose their job when automation rolls along? I suppose, yes. But at the same time, another person gets a better job, requiring more education and skill, and paying more. And consumers get more for the same price (and often less). It's a net sum gain.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur

I'm addressing your insinuation that automation does not result in job loss. That is a patently absurd suggestion.

Do you have any idea how many jobs have been 'eliminated' by automation since just a couple hundred years ago? I'll give you a clue, it is in the millions. By your doctrine everyone would be unemployed and broke by now. Empirically we know that is far from the case. You might want to revise your thesis.

check mate

There is absolutely no argument you can make if you're refuted epirically by history. Saying that automation is bad because ultimately noone will have jobs is a fallacy, otherwise global unemployment would be massive.

People tend to resist automation because it displaces people for some amout of time. but insinating that the displacement is permanent is just moronic.

I wonder why those worthless craft's people in Japan are called national treasures. I guess it's cause industrialists have so much money only they can buy the stuff. I know the Indians paid millions for arrow heads. Millions of years of evolution to make a stone ax and now, for 50 cents an hour you can load a bin with transistors for a circuit board for a bomb that can kill millions of people. I know the thrill of creating with my hands has gone way up, how about you. At least I'm a 300 Armorsmith in World of Warcraft. But we live a long time now in our world of no meaning. It's not so bad, though, because there are so few people now around who have known anything worth being missed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Does someone lose their job when automation rolls along? I suppose, yes. But at the same time, another person gets a better job, requiring more education and skill, and paying more. And consumers get more for the same price (and often less). It's a net sum gain.

Oh great. This will mean that in a thousand years we will have artificially enhanced brains the size of football fields and go to college for a thousand years. But the salaries are gonna be great, more than enough to pay for the billions it will cost to move a few blocks down the street.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...wtf? Where did I lie? Care to point that out to me?

That handbuilt cars ever cost a couple hundred dollars. Not even taking into account inflation (which you intentionally didn't), that never happened, as I pointed out.

How much was a Model T in the 1920s, eh?

???

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...wtf? Where did I lie? Care to point that out to me?

That handbuilt cars ever cost a couple hundred dollars. Not even taking into account inflation (which you intentionally didn't), that never happened, as I pointed out.

How much was a Model T in the 1920s, eh?

???

two posts up.....

Oh, and they sold for $850 base which, adjusted for inflation, would be the equivalent of about $17,000 today. So the price of brand new cars hasn't really changed over the decades (a Model T was definitely an economy car in its time, the first of all economy cars in fact), but in part automation has enabled consumers to purchase an infinitely safer, faster, and most comfortable car for about the same price through increases in productivity and efficiency.

 

[conjur]

That's when they first came out...not the 1920s.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
That's when they first came out...not the 1920s.

His point will remain the same, even with a lower model t cost.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur

I'm addressing your insinuation that automation does not result in job loss. That is a patently absurd suggestion.

Do you have any idea how many jobs have been 'eliminated' by automation since just a couple hundred years ago? I'll give you a clue, it is in the millions. By your doctrine everyone would be unemployed and broke by now. Empirically we know that is far from the case. You might want to revise your thesis.

check mate

There is absolutely no argument you can make if you're refuted epirically by history. Saying that automation is bad because ultimately noone will have jobs is a fallacy, otherwise global unemployment would be massive.

People tend to resist automation because it displaces people for some amout of time. but insinating that the displacement is permanent is just moronic.

I wonder why those worthless craft's people in Japan are called national treasures. I guess it's cause industrialists have so much money only they can buy the stuff. I know the Indians paid millions for arrow heads. Millions of years of evolution to make a stone ax and now, for 50 cents an hour you can load a bin with transistors for a circuit board for a bomb that can kill millions of people. I know the thrill of creating with my hands has gone way up, how about you. At least I'm a 300 Armorsmith in World of Warcraft. But we live a long time now in our world of no meaning. It's not so bad, though, because there are so few people now around who have known anything worth being missed.

again ... what you say?

You might want to try organizing the thoughts in your head such that they form a coherent arguments or at least a paragaph that makes sense. That's 3 threads full of senseless incoherent drivel I've seen you write today. Consider taking some english compostion classes or something.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur

I'm addressing your insinuation that automation does not result in job loss. That is a patently absurd suggestion.

Do you have any idea how many jobs have been 'eliminated' by automation since just a couple hundred years ago? I'll give you a clue, it is in the millions. By your doctrine everyone would be unemployed and broke by now. Empirically we know that is far from the case. You might want to revise your thesis.

check mate

There is absolutely no argument you can make if you're refuted epirically by history. Saying that automation is bad because ultimately noone will have jobs is a fallacy, otherwise global unemployment would be massive.

People tend to resist automation because it displaces people for some amout of time. but insinating that the displacement is permanent is just moronic.

I wonder why those worthless craft's people in Japan are called national treasures. I guess it's cause industrialists have so much money only they can buy the stuff. I know the Indians paid millions for arrow heads. Millions of years of evolution to make a stone ax and now, for 50 cents an hour you can load a bin with transistors for a circuit board for a bomb that can kill millions of people. I know the thrill of creating with my hands has gone way up, how about you. At least I'm a 300 Armorsmith in World of Warcraft. But we live a long time now in our world of no meaning. It's not so bad, though, because there are so few people now around who have known anything worth being missed.

again ... what you say?

You might want to try organizing the thoughts in your head such that they form a coherent arguments or at least a paragaph that makes sense. That's 3 threads full of senseless incoherent drivel I've seen you write today. Consider taking some english compostion classes or something.

Moonbeam's posts here are actually very well thought-out, and right on the money. We are wondering down the path which is easiest and most logical, yet the end of that path is not what we imagine. Or is it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: conjur

I'm addressing your insinuation that automation does not result in job loss. That is a patently absurd suggestion.

Do you have any idea how many jobs have been 'eliminated' by automation since just a couple hundred years ago? I'll give you a clue, it is in the millions. By your doctrine everyone would be unemployed and broke by now. Empirically we know that is far from the case. You might want to revise your thesis.

check mate

There is absolutely no argument you can make if you're refuted epirically by history. Saying that automation is bad because ultimately noone will have jobs is a fallacy, otherwise global unemployment would be massive.

People tend to resist automation because it displaces people for some amout of time. but insinating that the displacement is permanent is just moronic.

I wonder why those worthless craft's people in Japan are called national treasures. I guess it's cause industrialists have so much money only they can buy the stuff. I know the Indians paid millions for arrow heads. Millions of years of evolution to make a stone ax and now, for 50 cents an hour you can load a bin with transistors for a circuit board for a bomb that can kill millions of people. I know the thrill of creating with my hands has gone way up, how about you. At least I'm a 300 Armorsmith in World of Warcraft. But we live a long time now in our world of no meaning. It's not so bad, though, because there are so few people now around who have known anything worth being missed.

again ... what you say?

You might want to try organizing the thoughts in your head such that they form a coherent arguments or at least a paragaph that makes sense. That's 3 threads full of senseless incoherent drivel I've seen you write today. Consider taking some english compostion classes or something.

Interestingly a couple of people whose posts I'm always sure to read, because I find them cogent and intelligent thinkers, seem to be saying I'm doing OK. And if you look at my sig you should be able to see that not being understood is nothing new to me. A ship can't sail where the water is to shallow and there's nothing that can be done. But I will be more than happy to explain anything you ask.

 

[magomago]

I think automation is good, what is needed, and should always occur...those who argue otherwise should be reminded of the shuttlecock riots back in the days when everyone and their mom were into textile production. It always frees up labor to do other stuff. Imagine if we were all stuck manually weaving clothing!

But on the flip side...it is hard for those who got fired due to automation to find another job. I think the benefits trickle down to the next generation~ the kids of those manufactoring parents (provided they get an education). Because then they are free to do other jobs or learn other things rather than also sit there preforming some task that a machine could do better and more efficiently. So I agree the crappy part of automation is that those who lose their jobs due to automation will generally not be able to make it up...but look at a slightly longer term perspective and the benefits it provides is amazing...

I mean really guys...do you think that stuff like EE would have sprung up if most people were involved in textile production? Let machines do the mundane, and let our minds figure out other stuff

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
That's when they first came out...not the 1920s.

His point will remain the same, even with a lower model t cost.

He has no point and whatever point he's trying to get across glosses over MANY other factors. That's what I'm trying to get him to admit but holier-than-thou Vic will never do that.

 

[LumbergTech]

maybe one day we can just pay a few dollars and have something else live our lives for us as well..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
That's when they first came out...not the 1920s.

His point will remain the same, even with a lower model t cost.

He has no point and whatever point he's trying to get across glosses over MANY other factors. That's what I'm trying to get him to admit but holier-than-thou Vic will never do that.

Let's review:
- The Model T was built on an automated assembly line, not handbuilt
- It cost ~$17k in today's dollars
- Prior to the Model T, cars were handbuilt and so expensive that only the rich could afford them. Where once cars were built in small numbers in small workshops, the success of the Model T's automated mass production line employed hundreds of thousands (and Ford paid his workers generously btw).

This single example shows us convincingly how automation --
- reduces costs,
- lowers prices,
- increases employment and wages.

Now, WTF am I glossing over? Or is just that you have completely lost here and are now grasping at straws and petty insults? Sorry you took it personal.

:roll:

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur
You're off your rocker, Vic, if you seriously think more jobs are created via automation. That's the whole freaking point of automation: reducing the cost of labor via reducing headcount.

More profits are created and that's what we're seeing in this "recovery". Companies are making money and the execs along with it but the workers aren't seeing sh*t.

I wonder if people bitched about losing jobs when someone invented the plow, and it took only 1 or 2 people to tend to a crop, versus a dozen?

Many ancient history books point to the first advances in efficiency in collecting food (the development of agriculture) as the point in which humans seperated themselves from animals. While most animals have full time jobs of just eating and reproducing, humans broke away from the chains of simple survival and created music and artwork, then better tools, which in turn freed more people from farming,

Fast forward 15,000 years or so and the advent of the computer. Many companies used to have accounting departments with hundreds of people, many of them simply working the file cabinets all day. But now a handfull of people and Quickbooks can do better, more accurate work, in less time.

Only 2% of americans currently work in agriculture, does that mean the other 98% of the population that has been "laid off" over the past few millenia is out of work, and slave to that 2%? Hardly.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Vic

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?

Hey, great--that car will cost next to nothing, but of course, nobody will have a job to be able to afford it (well, other than the CEOs and company presidents but I imagine that was the plan all along anyway)

Brilliant!!!

Now I'm curious, if no one can afford the products, then how does the business turn profit, and how do the "CEOs and presidents" become rich?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Vic

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?

Hey, great--that car will cost next to nothing, but of course, nobody will have a job to be able to afford it (well, other than the CEOs and company presidents but I imagine that was the plan all along anyway)

Brilliant!!!

Now I'm curious, if no one can afford the products, then how does the business turn profit, and how do the "CEOs and presidents" become rich?

We are buying on borrowed money from equity. As all the worthless crap we buy becomes more and more expensive to buy we can borrow more and more against it. With every exchange everybody is raising their commission. The idea is to play the game such that you die with the most toys and owing the most borrowed money satisfied that we have never noticed the meaningless of our lives.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
You're off your rocker, Vic, if you seriously think more jobs are created via automation. That's the whole freaking point of automation: reducing the cost of labor via reducing headcount.

More profits are created and that's what we're seeing in this "recovery". Companies are making money and the execs along with it but the workers aren't seeing sh*t.

I wonder if people bitched about losing jobs when someone invented the plow, and it took only 1 or 2 people to tend to a crop, versus a dozen?

Many ancient history books point to the first advances in efficiency in collecting food (the development of agriculture) as the point in which humans seperated themselves from animals. While most animals have full time jobs of just eating and reproducing, humans broke away from the chains of simple survival and created music and artwork, then better tools, which in turn freed more people from farming,

Fast forward 15,000 years or so and the advent of the computer. Many companies used to have accounting departments with hundreds of people, many of them simply working the file cabinets all day. But now a handfull of people and Quickbooks can do better, more accurate work, in less time.

Only 2% of americans currently work in agriculture, does that mean the other 98% of the population that has been "laid off" over the past few millenia is out of work, and slave to that 2%? Hardly.

And don't forget the relatively insignificant cost of our fantastic new capacity to kill billions and which we are even increasing every day. There's no limit to what we can accomplish when we put our minds to it. No longer is the extinction of the human race limited by the cost factor. Ending the psychic pain we suffer is now well within our grasp. Soon some great visionary will be able to accomplish it on his own so we best not invest in mental health. It would be terrible if some cure ruined the party.