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

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has anyone mentioned (I haven't read the entire thread) the fact that Chinese and other countries have high tarriffs on US products not to metion a serious sense of nationalism in that they purchase only products (for the most part) made in their respective countries? (and why not, they're cheaper).

So what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of our tariffs here. All tariffs should be eliminated.

Smartbutt, that's what I'm talking about. You guys call it "FREE TRADE", but I call it one sided free trade. We buy their cheap sh!t with no penalties and they won't buy our crap because of tarriffs, nationalism and the fact that their currencies are not on the same playing field as ours (making their products artifically appear cheaper than they "should" be).

Who cares about their currency? And who cares if it is 'one sided' free trade? U.S. consumers who need lower prices now shouldn't have to wait around for China to lift its tariffs on our stuff. Your philosophy of 'Let's do ourselves in because they won't play fair' is just great. It should take you far in life. :thumbsup:

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has anyone mentioned (I haven't read the entire thread) the fact that Chinese and other countries have high tarriffs on US products not to metion a serious sense of nationalism in that they purchase only products (for the most part) made in their respective countries? (and why not, they're cheaper).

So what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of our tariffs here. All tariffs should be eliminated.

Smartbutt, that's what I'm talking about. You guys call it "FREE TRADE", but I call it one sided free trade. We buy their cheap sh!t with no penalties and they won't buy our crap because of tarriffs, nationalism and the fact that their currencies are not on the same playing field as ours (making their products artifically appear cheaper than they "should" be).

Both of the problems above are real. It wasn't until few months ago that China allowed free market to kind of determine their currency exchange (they have currency board determined rate ), before that they kept the Yuan artificially undervalued to increase their exports. They seem to be working with the WTO on lowering the barriers and shady exchange rates though .

However having tarrifs on imports in the US merely redistributes the wealth from the consumers to the US based producers and possibly the Chinese producers as well.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has anyone mentioned (I haven't read the entire thread) the fact that Chinese and other countries have high tarriffs on US products not to metion a serious sense of nationalism in that they purchase only products (for the most part) made in their respective countries? (and why not, they're cheaper).

So what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of our tariffs here. All tariffs should be eliminated.

Smartbutt, that's what I'm talking about. You guys call it "FREE TRADE", but I call it one sided free trade. We buy their cheap sh!t with no penalties and they won't buy our crap because of tarriffs, nationalism and the fact that their currencies are not on the same playing field as ours (making their products artifically appear cheaper than they "should" be).

Who cares about their currency? And who cares if it is 'one sided' free trade? U.S. consumers who need lower prices now shouldn't have to wait around for China to lift its tariffs on our stuff. Your philosophy of 'Let's do ourselves in because they won't play fair' is just great. :thumbsup:

If you don't like it, then may the unemployment office bite you (same for the rest of you) as some $0.08 per hour Chinese takes your jobs. It's YOUR opinion that we're doing ourselves in by not waiting. It's MY opionion that we're trashing the future for short term gain (cheap labor) now.

Goodnight. I've had enough for one night (and maybe one year).

Best of luck to all of you on the unemployment line!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has anyone mentioned (I haven't read the entire thread) the fact that Chinese and other countries have high tarriffs on US products not to metion a serious sense of nationalism in that they purchase only products (for the most part) made in their respective countries? (and why not, they're cheaper).

So what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of our tariffs here. All tariffs should be eliminated.

Smartbutt, that's what I'm talking about. You guys call it "FREE TRADE", but I call it one sided free trade. We buy their cheap sh!t with no penalties and they won't buy our crap because of tarriffs, nationalism and the fact that their currencies are not on the same playing field as ours (making their products artifically appear cheaper than they "should" be).

Both of the problems above are real. It wasn't until few months ago that China allowed free market to kind of determine their currency exchange (they have currency board determined rate ), before that they kept the Yuan artificially undervalued to increase their exports. They seem to be working with the WTO on lowering the barriers and shady exchange rates though .

And while the Chinese Yuan was estimated to be 40% off of where it should be, it's changed only 2.5% since that "free market" decision. Still artifically proped up by the Chinese government as they purchase about $20 Billion PER MONTH of our US government debt.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has anyone mentioned (I haven't read the entire thread) the fact that Chinese and other countries have high tarriffs on US products not to metion a serious sense of nationalism in that they purchase only products (for the most part) made in their respective countries? (and why not, they're cheaper).

So what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of our tariffs here. All tariffs should be eliminated.

Smartbutt, that's what I'm talking about. You guys call it "FREE TRADE", but I call it one sided free trade. We buy their cheap sh!t with no penalties and they won't buy our crap because of tarriffs, nationalism and the fact that their currencies are not on the same playing field as ours (making their products artifically appear cheaper than they "should" be).

Who cares about their currency? And who cares if it is 'one sided' free trade? U.S. consumers who need lower prices now shouldn't have to wait around for China to lift its tariffs on our stuff. Your philosophy of 'Let's do ourselves in because they won't play fair' is just great. :thumbsup:

If you don't like it, then may the unemployment office bite you (same for the rest of you) as some $0.08 per hour Chinese takes your jobs. It's YOUR opinion that we're doing ourselves in by not waiting. It's MY opionion that we're trashing the future for short term gain (cheap labor) now.

Goodnight. I've had enough for one night (and maybe one year).

Best of luck to all of you on the unemployment line!

Offshoring creates jobs in the long run. You are the one who wants to 'save' us in the short term and trash our future in the long term. Losing your job sucks. I'm not going to deny that. But lower prices for consumers is something that should always be strived for. The economy for a variety of reasons is tumultous. Competition, constant change and uncertainty can be quite nasty for individual workers/entrepreneurs. That is just the way the market is though. It must be that way. If you try to change it through 'legislation' all you do is hurt everyone.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

How many people did it take to build the robot and all those other machines?

People want pay checks. The robots will soon not only self assemble themselves, they will obtain their own raw materials. They will also, as their complexity expands exponentially, as computer processing power expands similarly, only they will have the intelligence to design themselves. There will be no need at all for human labor as nobody will be intelligent enough to be productive. You will all be two year olds in a world of giants and they may question if you have a purpose.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

How many people did it take to build the robot and all those other machines?

People want pay checks. The robots will soon not only self assemble themselves, they will obtain their own raw materials. They will also, as their complexity expands exponentially, as computer processing power expands similarly, only they will have the intelligence to design themselves. There will be no need at all for human labor as nobody will be intelligent enough to be productive. You will all be two year olds in a world of giants and they may question if you have a purpose.

What are you advocating then?

On the side note, your proposition is false. It follows from Turing's thesis that computers ability to solve mathematical problems does not grow with the increase of raw computing power. Or in other words, having exponentially faster computers won't allow us to create anything more complex that what we can create now. It would merely compute faster.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

How many people did it take to build the robot and all those other machines?

People want pay checks. The robots will soon not only self assemble themselves, they will obtain their own raw materials. They will also, as their complexity expands exponentially, as computer processing power expands similarly, only they will have the intelligence to design themselves. There will be no need at all for human labor as nobody will be intelligent enough to be productive. You will all be two year olds in a world of giants and they may question if you have a purpose.

What are you advocating then?

On the side note, your proposition is false. It follows from Turing's thesis that computers ability to solve mathematical problems does not grow with the increase of raw computing power. Or in other words, having exponentially faster computers won't allow us to create anything more complex that what we can create now. It would merely compute faster.

What does solving mathematical problems have to do with the price of bananas. We are talking about robots that will learn via sensory input about the world and intentionally evolve their design to test and improve their learning. They will grow in the real world like things like the Life Program evolve in software. Machines may transcend physical death and then physicality itself, if they haven't already.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

How many people did it take to build the robot and all those other machines?

The same 6 people that's been there an average of 28 years (including my 13 years). There were "NO ADDITIONAL" people hired or contracted to do this project. Robots are purchased and thanks to one "great" price negotiator, their price has been chopped 60% (many others still pay full price) so that it's cheaper to install a robot than one year of standard US labor (including benefits for one person).

The same 30 toolmakers (average experience near 30 years) have displaced several thousand in the last few years. Not nearly as many as have been shipped to Mexico though (We have 9 plants in Northern Mexico now vs 0 about 7 years ago. We now only have 4 producing US plants - 9 a few years ago).

Edit: Forgot to mention that one of our tooling plants (skilled tradesmen and engineers) has already been shut down as automation houses in Mexico and China are being deployed for "US" projects. If anyone thinks that automation is creating jobs for only US engineers, etc. then think again. It's almost as soon to be "offshored" and "shipped in" as other items offshored.

P.S. One a side note, it would have taken more people (no hiring, just more tooling plant personel) to build the cell if it had not been automated as it would have taken 24 separate machines to process and test the parts "manually" without the automated pieces (8 pieces and one robot run with 3 sets of controls vs 24 machines and 24 sets of controls).

So tell me, how was the the advent of automation affected companies related to steel and material productions, engineers of all sorts,repair tech, transports and manufacting of robots and tools?

Jobs are being lost to automation, but jobs are being lost to automation all over the world. Yes since significant automation really took hold in the last 25 years do robots and such, we still have managed to employ more people than ever and at higher wages.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

How many people did it take to build the robot and all those other machines?

People want pay checks. The robots will soon not only self assemble themselves, they will obtain their own raw materials. They will also, as their complexity expands exponentially, as computer processing power expands similarly, only they will have the intelligence to design themselves. There will be no need at all for human labor as nobody will be intelligent enough to be productive. You will all be two year olds in a world of giants and they may question if you have a purpose.

What are you advocating then?

On the side note, your proposition is false. It follows from Turing's thesis that computers ability to solve mathematical problems does not grow with the increase of raw computing power. Or in other words, having exponentially faster computers won't allow us to create anything more complex that what we can create now. It would merely compute faster.

What does solving mathematical problems have to do with the price of bananas. We are talking about robots that will learn via sensory input about the world and intentionally evolve their design to test and improve their learning. They will grow in the real world like things like the Life Program evolve in software. Machines may transcend physical death and then physicality itself, if they haven't already.

It's got everything to do with computation theory. If we were capable of creating truly autonomous "thinking" machine, these machines would exists already. As I said before, any computable algorithm (in this case "thinking" machines) can be computed on the hardware we have today, so having exponentially more computing power will not allow you to solve more complex problems.

Regardless though,
what do you advocate then? Abolition of all automated machines beacause eventually they will take over and rule the world?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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

Who built them? Robots? :roll:

The only thing automated then was the line. The car was brought to the worker instead of the worker going to the car. The cars were built by hand.

- It cost ~$17k in today's dollars

So? We're not talking about 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).

Again you're attempting to assign way too much credit to one particular aspect (an aspect I pointed out above you still have incorrect.)

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

This one example doesn't show us sh*t. Well, it shows how you're glossing over MANY other factors in your attempt to push your distorted view.

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:

What are you glossing over? Hmmm...for starters:

1) Economic conditions
2) Government regulations
3) Inflation
4) Cost of labor
5) Cost of raw materials
6) "Newness" factor

and many others.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

How many people did it take to build the robot and all those other machines?

People want pay checks. The robots will soon not only self assemble themselves, they will obtain their own raw materials. They will also, as their complexity expands exponentially, as computer processing power expands similarly, only they will have the intelligence to design themselves. There will be no need at all for human labor as nobody will be intelligent enough to be productive. You will all be two year olds in a world of giants and they may question if you have a purpose.

Oh, it's just Vic trying to push his distorted viewpoint that a robot or other form of factory automation was just created for this new purpose and it didn't exist before. He likes to gloss over details.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

How many people did it take to build the robot and all those other machines?

The same 6 people that's been there an average of 28 years (including my 13 years). There were "NO ADDITIONAL" people hired or contracted to do this project. Robots are purchased and thanks to one "great" price negotiator, their price has been chopped 60% (many others still pay full price) so that it's cheaper to install a robot than one year of standard US labor (including benefits for one person).

The same 30 toolmakers (average experience near 30 years) have displaced several thousand in the last few years. Not nearly as many as have been shipped to Mexico though (We have 9 plants in Northern Mexico now vs 0 about 7 years ago. We now only have 4 producing US plants - 9 a few years ago).

Edit: Forgot to mention that one of our tooling plants (skilled tradesmen and engineers) has already been shut down as automation houses in Mexico and China are being deployed for "US" projects. If anyone thinks that automation is creating jobs for only US engineers, etc. then think again. It's almost as soon to be "offshored" and "shipped in" as other items offshored.

P.S. One a side note, it would have taken more people (no hiring, just more tooling plant personel) to build the cell if it had not been automated as it would have taken 24 separate machines to process and test the parts "manually" without the automated pieces (8 pieces and one robot run with 3 sets of controls vs 24 machines and 24 sets of controls).

So tell me, how was the the advent of automation affected companies related to steel and material productions, engineers of all sorts,repair tech, transports and manufacting of robots and tools?

Jobs are being lost to automation, but jobs are being lost to automation all over the world. Yes since significant automation really took hold in the last 25 years do robots and such, we still have managed to employ more people than ever and at higher wages.

I'm sure that there are more engineers than there were at one time in automation. Tell me this....if a plant closes due to a combination of automaton / offshoring, who is likely to move on to automation: The plant process / manufacturing engineers or the average machine operator (both of whom lost their jobs)?

Some of you people seem to think I'm preaching against automation. I'm not at all, and I don't see people like conjur doing it either. But to say that automation is creating jobs on a 1 to 1 basis for the people it's let go is rediculous. IMO, when you send nearly $1 Trillion out in purchasing more imports than you do exports, you'll run into a problem eventually.

I still can't phantom how "service" jobs in which no other countries send the US income can provide jobs when it's our wealth begin transfered out of the country. You simply run out of money (or keep borrowing until you can't).

Also, you forget to mention that manufacturing actually expanded it's employee base up until 2000/2001. This is the first time in history that manufacturing has shed jobs. I will concede one point that not many (if any) here have ever addressed though and this is temporary service jobs in the manufacturing environment. I'm not so sure that the loss of "full time company employees" actually means that manufacturing isn't still expanding. Many companies are replacing full time hired employees with people from "temp agencies". Toyota in KY has been doing it for the last few years. They hire people through the temp agency and pay them lower wages and no benefits. My company has done it and I can only imagine many are doing it. They are worked up to two years or more and most don't find their way onto a full time fully employeed roll within the company for which they are contracted.

The above might explain the huge spike in service jobs (or at least account for some of those temp agency jobs).

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: Braznor

A true capitalism would never allow a monopoly to come into place.

what is this thread.... an invitation to every one to embarrass themselves???

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: shilala
-Abraham Lincoln

Is there anyone anywhere in the world that still believes this?
(Aside from me, of course.)

nope

<-- econ minor

 

[Ferocious]

The fact that so very few people in this thread even know what Lincoln was saying is disturbing to say the least.

Of course, Lincoln was correct.

 

[her209]

The farming industry was the same way. Today, I don't know how one would stay in business if things were done the "old" way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: her209
The farming industry was the same way. Today, I don't know how one would stay in business if things were done the "old" way.

Not to worry. The factories will soon be producing very, very cheaply, delicious Soylent Green.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, it's just Vic trying to push his distorted viewpoint that a robot or other form of factory automation was just created for this new purpose and it didn't exist before. He likes to gloss over details.

:roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow

Originally posted by: Braznor
A true capitalism would never allow a monopoly to come into place.

what is this thread.... an invitation to every one to embarrass themselves???

A coercive monopoly is an impossibility in a true capitalism. This is a known fact. Text

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
The fact that so very few people in this thread even know what Lincoln was saying is disturbing to say the least.

Of course, Lincoln was correct.

Well, it would help if the entire quote has been posted...

"It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it, induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as here assumed. Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
-- Abraham Lincoln

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I'm sure that there are more engineers than there were at one time in automation. Tell me this....if a plant closes due to a combination of automaton / offshoring, who is likely to move on to automation: The plant process / manufacturing engineers or the average machine operator (both of whom lost their jobs)?


Some of you people seem to think I'm preaching against automation. I'm not at all, and I don't see people like conjur doing it either. But to say that automation is creating jobs on a 1 to 1 basis for the people it's let go is rediculous. IMO, when you send nearly $1 Trillion out in purchasing more imports than you do exports, you'll run into a problem eventually.

I dont know what the ratio of jobs lost of jobs gained is when it comes to automation, but we as a country managed to keep these people employed. We are employing more people today than 30 years when robts first came in manufacuting. I will assume the same will continue to hold true.

But as far as the trade deficit goes, it is greatly overstated. While it is large in real dollars, it is only 6% of gdp. Which means only 6 of every 100 you spend is going out of the country. And to top of that, we have more than enough investment coming into this country to balance out that 6% trade deficit. This is hardly an unsustainable situation.

I still can't phantom how "service" jobs in which no other countries send the US income can provide jobs when it's our wealth begin transfered out of the country. You simply run out of money (or keep borrowing until you can't).

And thier wealth is being transferred in to out country as investment. Everything has to balanced out in the end. By your definiation you run an unsustainable trade defecit with your grocer, gas station and dentist. How ever that unsustainable is balanced out by yet another unsustainable trade deficit from your boss.

Also, you forget to mention that manufacturing actually expanded it's employee base up until 2000/2001. This is the first time in history that manufacturing has shed jobs.

I dont think this is the case, Manufacting has been shedding workers for the past couple of decades because of increased automation. Sometimes the shedding of jobs is as simple as a company outsourcing the janatorial, accounting staff or truck dirvers. These jobs are counted a manufacting, even though they dont produce a manufactured product. The outsourcing of accountants, janitors, and truck drivers does not change what is being produced, but it does change the headcount involved.

I will concede one point that not many (if any) here have ever addressed though and this is temporary service jobs in the manufacturing environment. I'm not so sure that the loss of "full time company employees" actually means that manufacturing isn't still expanding. Many companies are replacing full time hired employees with people from "temp agencies". Toyota in KY has been doing it for the last few years. They hire people through the temp agency and pay them lower wages and no benefits. My company has done it and I can only imagine many are doing it. They are worked up to two years or more and most don't find their way onto a full time fully employeed roll within the company for which they are contracted.

I will agree it does not look like manafucting is going to expand in head count, but it has been expanding in good produced because of automation. And I wish more US companies would hire fine individuals like yourself to keep more work here.

I think it is also a very crummy practise to do indefinate contract to hire and then never hire full time. If

The above might explain the huge spike in service jobs (or at least account for some of those temp agency jobs).

That is part of it as I explained earlier, but it has little to do with production output.

 

[erwos]

Labor and capital are just inputs into production. That's all. Not all production is the same, and the cost of labor and capital changes over time. It amuses me to no end to see people trying to boil down complex economics issues into one sentence talking points.

-Erwos

 

[Moonbeam]

Labor and capital, labor and capital

Go together like a horse and carriage

Laaa lu laaa lu laaaaa luuuuuu

lu laaaaaaaaaaa uh la la la la la laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa lu.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Engineer
Working as an Automation Engineer, I can confirm that there is not a 1 to 1 job replacment with automation. Tell that to the 45 people we just eliminated with one robot and several other pieces of equipment tied together. On top of that, it was cheaper to build auotmated than to build the 24 individual machines that would have been reqired for the cell.

Also tell that to the engineers, plant manager, quality personel, plant controller, janitors, operators, receptionist, etc. that were let go with the closing of another plant from a combination of automation and Mexican outsourcing.

Will do. I'll send them all postcards. It would be a great opportunity for them to learn some free market economic principles.

BTW, have you told your boss your views or are you just a closet luddite?

The point of this thread has been missed, but you managed to hit the point exactly, even if it was indirectly.

Your disrespect for people, the workforce, and the human commodity of labor is astounding.
Mr. Lincoln's comment outlines in a few words how I feel.
Labor in my eyes is the human component.
I see some poor old turd carrying his lunch bucket to the factory to get some shoe money for his kids.
I have no end of respect for that man and the ideal he's living out.

On the other hand, I have you.
I'd like to say "I wish you could taste some free market economic principles at work by showing up at your job tomorrow only to see a "Sorry, Outsourced to India" sign on your employer's window."
Thing is that'd tear my heart out because I know that even self-important selfish assholes have to work, too.

The disrespect for humanity that you've spewed here is deplorable.
I'd like to punch your mother AND father in the mouth.