5 ms·

Since we're talking about incentives, without cheap labor the incentive will be to increase automation until the total cost comes back down. So domestic workers

Since we're talking about incentives, without cheap labor the incentive will be to increase automation until the total cost comes back down. So domestic workers' desire for high-pay/low-skill jobs is just as selfish/artificial as companies' desire for cheap labor. That doesn't mean it's bad, but slamming companies for responding to market forces when it comes to immigration alone is almost cherry-picking. You have to consider the whole picture to make good policy.

darkpuma 7y ago
Even automated plants have lots of labor opportunities for highschool grads. Some of the bean plants I worked in were ostensibly automated, which meant it still took two or three people supervising the plant during operation. (In the un-automated plants it was more like 10-15 people needed, so there was definitely a big difference.) But even when the whole processing line is automatic you still need people around to unclog machines when they get jammed, hit them with hammers when they start acting up, replace bearings when they start screaming, rake up all the beans that fall on the floor, unclog all the drains that get filled with scum, rake beans out of the back of the truck (because moving-floor trailers never get all the beans out.) Each automated plant is also basically assured income for any local mechanic, who would typically get called at least a few times a week for any problem I couldn't fix with a hammer or wrench.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
You're crossing streams a little bit. Both workers and companies want what's good for them, that's not so much 'selfish'. Noting is really 'artificial' in this either, it's all market forces, though one might argue that the 'off the books' labour is to some extent an artificial impetus. If 'cheap undocumented labour' were not available, yes, you are right, more automation would come into play, but that doesn't imply it would all be automated, as much of it cannot. Most likely outcome would be: 1) a lot of farming is simply unsustainable in any case, and it moves to Mexico. This is good thing however as it provides jobs at wages upon which people can have a normal life there, and helps expand their economy. 2) full automation in some areas for net lost jobs 3) partial automation in others (machinery is always getting smarter and better even if it doesn't fully automate) and 4) high paying jobs for the crops that can maintain margin. But it's all moot: there's a reason nations have laws, citizenship, constitutions etc. and having people live and work on the black market without legal wages, health insurance, worker's rights, etc. etc. is self defeating. It'd be better to play by the rules - either enforce the laws as they exist, or enact an 'above board' migrant workers program (i.e. short term visas) for workers to come so they don't have to hide in the shadows and can have at least some kind of labour protection which everyone should have.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  > Both workers and companies want what's good for them, that's not so much 'selfish'. When it's at the expense of the other party, that literally is what "selfish" means.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    'Selfish' has negative connotations to it. A better term in this context would be 'self interest'.
KirinDave 7y ago
This didn't really work for Tesla. It turns out skilled labor is still really important even if you have a bunch of machines printing and milling material.
- belltaco 7y ago
  As Bill Gates said, we tend to over estimate change in the short term and underestimate change in the long term. The advances in machine learning in the last decade are significant.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    They are, but that doesn't change the reality that the economies making the most high tech goods the fastest and cheapest are the ones throwing the most human suffering at the problem, today.
- notacoward 7y ago
  What's true for high-tech manufacturing might not be true for farm labor, meat packing, hospitality and food service, construction, or the other kinds of jobs that many immigrants are doing. The pool of unskilled jobs with decent wages is shrinking and will continue to do so. Artificial labor-force limitation is a temporary palliative at best, and energy spent kicking others off the bottom rung of the ladder would be better spent climbing. Climbing, not kicking, is what capitalism is supposed to be about anyway.
  - JPKab 7y ago
    I get your point, but there is an inherent contradiction in your statement: You simultaneously point out that low skilled jobs are being lost to automation, and advocate for bringing in more low skilled workers for this dwindling pool of jobs. Seems cruel.
    - notacoward 7y ago
      > there is an inherent contradiction in your statement > ... > Seems cruel. I see your point also. I assure you, I don't mean to be cruel. The problem is, what is cruel to one can be kind to another, and vice versa. That immigrant has hopes and dreams, and maybe a family, too. If the global pool of jobs is shrinking, and the global pool of workers is growing, the system will move toward equilibrium. Jobs will shift person by person, factory by factory, or industry by industry. Increasing the premium for our labor, and thus for the products of that labor, only ensures that it will be industry by industry. This process is already under way. I'm sorry, but it's the market that is cruel. So, since I'm away from my own home and have some time to spare, what does that mean in terms of KirinDave's idea to keep entry-level jobs for Americans? I'll be blunt: that's stupid. Americans, who have to earn a certain wage to maintain even the lowest standard of living, can never be as cost-effective as people to whom that same wage looks like a king's ransom. That's where "merit based" immigration comes in. It's about making the best and the brightest from all over the world part of our ecosystem instead of a competing one. It's a deliberate brain drain. It leaves the low-skill workers where they are, unable to compete job by job but also bereft of any leadership that would enable them to compete industry by industry. It's unfair - one might even say cruel - to them, but global fairness is not a goal. It's an effective way to promote Trump's and KirinDave's goal of propping up uneducated Americans' wages. I just happen to think that's a lousy goal, not least because it's not sustainable. The longer we put it off, the worse the eventual result will be.

darkpuma 7y ago

Even automated plants have lots of labor opportunities for highschool grads. Some of the bean plants I worked in were ostensibly automated, which meant it still took two or three people supervising the plant during operation. (In the un-automated plants it was more like 10-15 people needed, so there was definitely a big difference.) But even when the whole processing line is automatic you still need people around to unclog machines when they get jammed, hit them with hammers when they start acting up, replace bearings when they start screaming, rake up all the beans that fall on the floor, unclog all the drains that get filled with scum, rake beans out of the back of the truck (because moving-floor trailers never get all the beans out.) Each automated plant is also basically assured income for any local mechanic, who would typically get called at least a few times a week for any problem I couldn't fix with a hammer or wrench.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

You're crossing streams a little bit. Both workers and companies want what's good for them, that's not so much 'selfish'. Noting is really 'artificial' in this either, it's all market forces, though one might argue that the 'off the books' labour is to some extent an artificial impetus. If 'cheap undocumented labour' were not available, yes, you are right, more automation would come into play, but that doesn't imply it would all be automated, as much of it cannot. Most likely outcome would be: 1) a lot of farming is simply unsustainable in any case, and it moves to Mexico. This is good thing however as it provides jobs at wages upon which people can have a normal life there, and helps expand their economy. 2) full automation in some areas for net lost jobs 3) partial automation in others (machinery is always getting smarter and better even if it doesn't fully automate) and 4) high paying jobs for the crops that can maintain margin. But it's all moot: there's a reason nations have laws, citizenship, constitutions etc. and having people live and work on the black market without legal wages, health insurance, worker's rights, etc. etc. is self defeating. It'd be better to play by the rules - either enforce the laws as they exist, or enact an 'above board' migrant workers program (i.e. short term visas) for workers to come so they don't have to hide in the shadows and can have at least some kind of labour protection which everyone should have.

InitialLastName 7y ago
> Both workers and companies want what's good for them, that's not so much 'selfish'. When it's at the expense of the other party, that literally is what "selfish" means.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  'Selfish' has negative connotations to it. A better term in this context would be 'self interest'.

KirinDave 7y ago

This didn't really work for Tesla. It turns out skilled labor is still really important even if you have a bunch of machines printing and milling material.

belltaco 7y ago
As Bill Gates said, we tend to over estimate change in the short term and underestimate change in the long term. The advances in machine learning in the last decade are significant.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  They are, but that doesn't change the reality that the economies making the most high tech goods the fastest and cheapest are the ones throwing the most human suffering at the problem, today.
notacoward 7y ago
What's true for high-tech manufacturing might not be true for farm labor, meat packing, hospitality and food service, construction, or the other kinds of jobs that many immigrants are doing. The pool of unskilled jobs with decent wages is shrinking and will continue to do so. Artificial labor-force limitation is a temporary palliative at best, and energy spent kicking others off the bottom rung of the ladder would be better spent climbing. Climbing, not kicking, is what capitalism is supposed to be about anyway.
- JPKab 7y ago
  I get your point, but there is an inherent contradiction in your statement: You simultaneously point out that low skilled jobs are being lost to automation, and advocate for bringing in more low skilled workers for this dwindling pool of jobs. Seems cruel.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > there is an inherent contradiction in your statement > ... > Seems cruel. I see your point also. I assure you, I don't mean to be cruel. The problem is, what is cruel to one can be kind to another, and vice versa. That immigrant has hopes and dreams, and maybe a family, too. If the global pool of jobs is shrinking, and the global pool of workers is growing, the system will move toward equilibrium. Jobs will shift person by person, factory by factory, or industry by industry. Increasing the premium for our labor, and thus for the products of that labor, only ensures that it will be industry by industry. This process is already under way. I'm sorry, but it's the market that is cruel. So, since I'm away from my own home and have some time to spare, what does that mean in terms of KirinDave's idea to keep entry-level jobs for Americans? I'll be blunt: that's stupid. Americans, who have to earn a certain wage to maintain even the lowest standard of living, can never be as cost-effective as people to whom that same wage looks like a king's ransom. That's where "merit based" immigration comes in. It's about making the best and the brightest from all over the world part of our ecosystem instead of a competing one. It's a deliberate brain drain. It leaves the low-skill workers where they are, unable to compete job by job but also bereft of any leadership that would enable them to compete industry by industry. It's unfair - one might even say cruel - to them, but global fairness is not a goal. It's an effective way to promote Trump's and KirinDave's goal of propping up uneducated Americans' wages. I just happen to think that's a lousy goal, not least because it's not sustainable. The longer we put it off, the worse the eventual result will be.