5 ms·

Why does it have to be either/or?

by FD3SA 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago
There has been steady progress in automation since the industrial revolution. It both created and destroyed jobs. The overall level of unemployment has never been dictated by automation, only by aggregate demand. When wealth pools at the top, demand is kept artificially low.
- keithnoizu 11y ago
  There has been steady progress in our ability to offshore work traditionally constrained to localized locations. Chickens being shipped to china for butchering and then shipped back to the states for sale being an example of a job not historically offshore-able. FD3SA has a point. There are multiple factors involved in changes to labor supply and demand.
  - marincounty 11y ago
    We can argue about automation, and the cheapest way to make process a product, but there's a limit. America crossed that line awhile ago--in my world. It's time for tariffs, and making it a little harder for Americans to do business overseas? And visa versa? (If you're not an American citizen; you shouldn't be able to buy real-estate here--period--put this into effect today?). What do we gave to lose at this point? The 1 percenter's have a lot to fear if we came to our senses? I happen to know a few multimillionaire's who have exploited labor/materials/environment of developing countries for the last 20 years; I guarantee you couldn't stomach just what they do with the money they saved by being Greedy. I am tempted to call them out? One day maybe? I know this; their kids usually end up despising mommy, and daddy once they figure out just how they ended up so wealthy. (Shipping chickens overseas to save on processing costs sounds like a myth? I really hope it's not true?)
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >There are multiple factors involved in changes to labor supply and demand. There are multiple factors, but that doesn't change the fact that the effect robots have is pretty negligible. It is a scapegoat for rising unemployment, not a reason. There is, also, just one overriding reason, which I mentioned. >Chickens being shipped to china for butchering and then shipped back to the states for sale being an example of a job not historically offshore-able. Possibly partly because only recently did American chicken butchers realize that instead of tossing the feet away, they could sell them to the Chinese, who absolutely adore them.
- FD3SA 11y ago
  I completely agree, but I see automation as a catalyst that has allowed wealth concentration to proceed at an unprecedented rate which would otherwise be impossible. Policy is by far the greatest factor, but it doesn't help that businesses no longer need as many employees to get things done. Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton. They are off by orders of magnitude due to automation.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - pravda 11y ago
    I'm just gonna leave this here. https://youtu.be/0D62IX-Vd9g?t=69 https://youtu.be/0D62IX-Vd9g?t=69
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      "In tech, Apple only needs 5 folk to generate $10 million" Well, if you pretend the 1.2 million people working at Foxconn in China magically don't exist or are some special kind of robot, yes, those 5 folk are all that are needed.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >It doesn't help that businesses no longer need as many employees to get things done. I don't think it's a catalyst either. By and large, businesses that are shedding employees are doing so because they can outsource the labor or because demand is low. >Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton. Profits per employee is a terrible measure. Airbnb doesn't require a lot of employees because they've essentially outsourced the labor to their customers. The house you're staying in wasn't cleaned by them, but it was probably cleaned by somebody. You were greeted by somebody that wasn't them also. That's not automation; that's arbitrage. Hilton hotels probably raised their profits per employee by contracting out their cleaning to agencies.

Why does it have to be either/or?

by FD3SA 11y ago

Why does it have to be either/or?

There has been steady progress in automation since the industrial revolution. It both created and destroyed jobs. The overall level of unemployment has never been dictated by automation, only by aggregate demand. When wealth pools at the top, demand is kept artificially low.

keithnoizu 11y ago
There has been steady progress in our ability to offshore work traditionally constrained to localized locations. Chickens being shipped to china for butchering and then shipped back to the states for sale being an example of a job not historically offshore-able. FD3SA has a point. There are multiple factors involved in changes to labor supply and demand.
- marincounty 11y ago
  We can argue about automation, and the cheapest way to make process a product, but there's a limit. America crossed that line awhile ago--in my world. It's time for tariffs, and making it a little harder for Americans to do business overseas? And visa versa? (If you're not an American citizen; you shouldn't be able to buy real-estate here--period--put this into effect today?). What do we gave to lose at this point? The 1 percenter's have a lot to fear if we came to our senses? I happen to know a few multimillionaire's who have exploited labor/materials/environment of developing countries for the last 20 years; I guarantee you couldn't stomach just what they do with the money they saved by being Greedy. I am tempted to call them out? One day maybe? I know this; their kids usually end up despising mommy, and daddy once they figure out just how they ended up so wealthy. (Shipping chickens overseas to save on processing costs sounds like a myth? I really hope it's not true?)
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >There are multiple factors involved in changes to labor supply and demand. There are multiple factors, but that doesn't change the fact that the effect robots have is pretty negligible. It is a scapegoat for rising unemployment, not a reason. There is, also, just one overriding reason, which I mentioned. >Chickens being shipped to china for butchering and then shipped back to the states for sale being an example of a job not historically offshore-able. Possibly partly because only recently did American chicken butchers realize that instead of tossing the feet away, they could sell them to the Chinese, who absolutely adore them.
FD3SA 11y ago
I completely agree, but I see automation as a catalyst that has allowed wealth concentration to proceed at an unprecedented rate which would otherwise be impossible. Policy is by far the greatest factor, but it doesn't help that businesses no longer need as many employees to get things done. Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton. They are off by orders of magnitude due to automation.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pravda 11y ago
  I'm just gonna leave this here. https://youtu.be/0D62IX-Vd9g?t=69 https://youtu.be/0D62IX-Vd9g?t=69
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    "In tech, Apple only needs 5 folk to generate $10 million" Well, if you pretend the 1.2 million people working at Foxconn in China magically don't exist or are some special kind of robot, yes, those 5 folk are all that are needed.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >It doesn't help that businesses no longer need as many employees to get things done. I don't think it's a catalyst either. By and large, businesses that are shedding employees are doing so because they can outsource the labor or because demand is low. >Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton. Profits per employee is a terrible measure. Airbnb doesn't require a lot of employees because they've essentially outsourced the labor to their customers. The house you're staying in wasn't cleaned by them, but it was probably cleaned by somebody. You were greeted by somebody that wasn't them also. That's not automation; that's arbitrage. Hilton hotels probably raised their profits per employee by contracting out their cleaning to agencies.