[Athens]

Tell me if this sounds about right

40 years ago (the)business requires 200 people to operate.

200 People made a decent income, paid taxes, had money to purchase stuff.

Now today (the)business produces twice as much with only 30 people to operate

30 People make a decent income, pay taxes, have money to purchase stuff and twice as much is created so less of these businesses are needed in general

the other 170 positions the people end up on basic income jobs, pay less taxes and purchase less stuff.


Business makes way more money while offering products cheaper. They have to offer the products cheaper because more and more people on basic income jobs.

How long can we sustain this both individually as a socieity and collectivly in the form of revenue for Government. How rich does a company have to get at what cost.

Its not even like a company can try to do the right thing because they will cost so much more then the other guy they will run out of business.

From my stand point automation is really doing a big diservice to society.

A single machine at a logging site cut a tree, strip a tree and cut it into chuncks in about a minute, 50 trees a hour. The same work now done by one man used to take 20 man before.

Same goes for almost any industry out there.

Does this picture seem bleak to you, it sure does for me.

[turtle777]

Our whole standard of living is based on productivity gains due to machination and automation.
Without it, we'd live like in the 1700s.

People need to adapt. You can alway go Amish, if you don't like it.

I, for one, am glad that I can have a office job, and don't have to cut trees outside.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Tell me if this sounds about right

40 years ago (the)business requires 200 people to operate.

200 People made a decent income, paid taxes, had money to purchase stuff.

Now today (the)business produces twice as much with only 30 people to operate

30 People make a decent income, pay taxes, have money to purchase stuff and twice as much is created so less of these businesses are needed in general

the other 170 positions the people end up on basic income jobs, pay less taxes and purchase less stuff.

Those 170 people are supposed to use their newfound availability go help invent and produce new products that we didn't have before, and are still too novel to be totally mechanized.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Our whole standard of living is based on productivity gains due to machination and automation.
Without it, we'd live like in the 1700s.

People need to adapt. You can alway go Amish, if you don't like it.

I, for one, am glad that I can have a office job, and don't have to cut trees outside.

-t

Seconded. What's more, the process of automation itself creates jobs in different areas. I design software to help streamline/automate business processes: customer management software for call centres, billing management, technical support, installation and repair scheduling, etc. We've got a team of 300 people working on this stuff for one company that would otherwise have to be employed elsewhere if the business wasn't looking to optimize it's workflows.

[BadKosh]

How much money did the owners risk in purchasing the new equipment? The people who made that automated equipment can now keep their jobs , and will until the sales staff can't sell any more. Just as soon as you start winning the rat race, along come faster rats.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Seconded. What's more, the process of automation itself creates jobs in different areas. I design software to help streamline/automate business processes: customer management software for call centres, billing management, technical support, installation and repair scheduling, etc. We've got a team of 300 people working on this stuff for one company that would otherwise have to be employed elsewhere if the business wasn't looking to optimize it's workflows.

But no one expected Athens to actually think through any of the obvious stuff.

[Athens]

Ah yes the job shifting. The designers live in India, the builders of the machines live in China and the rest of us work in service. A grand future. In the last 40 years we have had to become a 2 income society because the one income was not good enough any more and as things progress even with those 2 incomes, every year families have less and less money. Its gotten to the point that even the basics for a middle income family is becoming more and more difficult. Globalization is going to lead to a totally new and bright future. Our leaders are selling us out piece by piece. Guess the trade deficit isn't something to worry about, the transfer of wealth out isn't a big deal either. Oh and lets not worry about being indebted to other nations. Environmentalist just love to target the pollution created from a single car, but 15 super tankers per year produce the same amount of Air Pollution as all the cars on the planet. How many of these super ships are running back and forth over the oceans. And lets not even talk about the power global companies now have. I mean the illusion that governments actually have any power can continue for a little while longer.

How much money did a owner risk in purchasing new equipment. How much risk would the owner have taking by not being able to compete against his competition. Its a vicious cycle which there is no end. Lets look at the BC Softwood lumber industry. For years the US government claimed that government subsidies created a unfair advantage to the BC forestry softwood lumber industry. Result, import taxes put in place to apparently level the playing field even though it was illegal according to NAFTA but that is beside's the point. The result was a complete re-tooling of the soft wood industry on the BC side which resulted in fewer jobs, more efficiencies, greater export at even lower prices and when the import taxes finally got removed Washington State had no choice but to re-tool. End result softwood lumber industries lose lots of jobs both in BC and Washington while the big forestry companies make more profits then ever due to the forced economic situation created by idiot governments. US Auto industry continues to get political interference Washington causing less ability to be competitive which put most of the major players through bankruptcy after years of running at losses.

The major restaurant chains have re-invented the entire food industry to suit their need to provide nation wide consistency with food products. A McDonalds in Tampa Florida has to serve burgers that taste exactly the same as burgers in Seattle Washington. While in itself not a bad idea, because McDonalds and other fast food chains are such massive consumers of food products all the food industries have had to adapt to serve them first. Massive cattle centers dozens of miles in diameter, intense and dangerous methods for raising bigger more profitable and faster meat. Centralized and automated slaughter houses have replaced millions of well paying jobs just like in any other industry. Hormones and antibiotics feed to animals to off set the negative effects of intense farming which gets into our food systems but who cares right, the race for profits and efficiencies at all cost is what is important. Must take care of share holders.

Lets hit up Charities again. Common practice, we dummies donate money to big international charities trying to do good. One of the biggest causes of sickness in Africa is the result of unsafe water sources. Charities want to tackle this problem. They sell this to us as a major problem. It is a major problem. But because corporations are so skilled at deception they convince charities that the scope of the projects are so massive that its best the private sector corporations are the best methods of implementing the solutions. And for once the leader of the pack in this department isn't a US corporation but a European one but that is besides the point. So charities end up paying large corporations to design, and build the infrastructure for safe and clean water to remote locations in Africa. So far so good, but the charities also give the rights to run these systems to the corporations. This is where the business side of things take over and profits are generated. In order to access the corporate designed, built charity funded water systems, the users have to pre-pay. People that have no money to pay have no choice but to continue to use foul sources of water to drink in even though a tap has been installed in the community.



Problem addressed, safe, clean water is reaching communities in Africa. Its just ashame that the locals can't afford to access the water which we donated our money to help provide. Another victory for corporate greed.

Lets look at the World Monetary fund and its political interference for the best interests of Corporate America. For the most part the World Monetary Fund is a US organization which answers to corporate groups not the people. While on the surface it pretends to be looking out for the interest of foreign economies by providing loans and resources to countries to build up economies the fact is the only agenda the World Monetary fund has is providing additional resources to companies. Bolivia required money to rebuild its water systems and one of the conditions the World Monetary fund required in order to provide this capital was the complete and total privatization of the water works. It became illegal to even capture rain water until eventually riots broke out forcing the Bolivian government to break its contractual agreements with the World Monetary fund.

Lets look at how Banks make money by providing credit to people who should never be given a credit card. Banks like poor people because poor people get into a trap of only paying the minimum payments on outstanding debts. Because the minimum payments will never clear the debt, at least not in the life time of the person in debt the only realistic option for some one is to default on the debts. Now you would expect banks to hate this but they love it because it creates them additional profits. They jack up the interest rate, charge additional fee's for late payment, lack of payment and so forth. After X number of months which federal law mandates they try to collect this debt, they can now sell the debt to a collection company who will gladly purchase it in the hopes it can collect the debt or the assets of the person. Its a gamble for the debt collection companies but a win for the banks. Because of all the added fee's and interest related to the defaulted payments, the banks get all the money that was credited out to the person so no actual loss is created for the bank. This is why banks target poor people, people with bad credit, students. This is why people who live in nursing homes unable to function receive credit offers. Its a system built on financial slavery.

Net result, Governments take's orders from Corporate powers which is in its best interests to reduce good paying job numbers for their own profits while setting the stage of decreased wealth prompting the need to use credit just to meet the basics in life. Thus reducing the individuals powers to challenge the status quo being created. National debt puts an entire country into the slavery of corporations run by a elite small group of people who hold the true power to run everything.

The future is bright.

[Athens]

PS Automation is reducing manufacturing jobs globally, Japan, China, Brazil all losing jobs to Automation too.

Lets look at the agriculture sector of the US. At one time up to 25% of the US population was involved in agriculture jobs. Today only 3% of the US population is involved in agriculture but at the same time the production levels have increased by tremendous amounts. No amount of designers and manufacturers can replace that many jobs which have been shifted out. Manufacturing is heading down the same path. Centralization is doing the same for office jobs. At which point does the economy begin to collapse because not enough people have decent enough paying jobs to afford the products which have become super cheap to produce. With a global population reaching close to 7 billion people how do we end global poverty if automation and efficiencies driven by profits are removing jobs and income. This isn't sustainable.

[Laminar]

Utter stupidity combined with unlimited free time is terrible thing.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Utter stupidity combined with unlimited free time is terrible thing.

Your absolutely right, the way our civilization is heading is utter stupidity.....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Seconded. What's more, the process of automation itself creates jobs in different areas. I design software to help streamline/automate business processes: customer management software for call centres, billing management, technical support, installation and repair scheduling, etc. We've got a team of 300 people working on this stuff for one company that would otherwise have to be employed elsewhere if the business wasn't looking to optimize it's workflows.

This here ^

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

PS Automation is reducing manufacturing jobs globally, Japan, China, Brazil all losing jobs to Automation too.

Lets look at the agriculture sector of the US. At one time up to 25% of the US population was involved in agriculture jobs. Today only 3% of the US population is involved in agriculture but at the same time the production levels have increased by tremendous amounts. No amount of designers and manufacturers can replace that many jobs which have been shifted out. Manufacturing is heading down the same path. Centralization is doing the same for office jobs. At which point does the economy begin to collapse because not enough people have decent enough paying jobs to afford the products which have become super cheap to produce. With a global population reaching close to 7 billion people how do we end global poverty if automation and efficiencies driven by profits are removing jobs and income. This isn't sustainable.

I'd recommend ending oppressive regulatory structure and taxation that discourages bringing new products and services to market.

What would you do to correct the ills you cite here?

[OreoCookie]

@Athens
I think your fears are baseless: yes, nowadays it takes less people to assemble, to do manual labor as, say, 50 or 100 years ago. This doesn't mean there are more unemployed, but more people doing other, qualified jobs. There was no IT industry 50 years ago. Society has never been as productive or well off as it is now -- even though it seems differently. The problems you mention, a diminishing middle class, for instance, are real, but I don't think they're connected to how we produce `goods.' At the dawn of industrialization, there was an abundance of very poor laborers who had to live in conditions we wouldn't want to have in our prisons nowadays.

[turtle777]

Seriously, Athens, you should go Amish. You'd like it.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd recommend ending oppressive regulatory structure and taxation that discourages bringing new products and services to market.

What would you do to correct the ills you cite here?

Answer will be multi-part because in the grand picture they all do relate.

Start with Political and Private sector Interference in agencies that should be free of it.

Government Agencies setup originally setup to protect the people, the land, and national interests are failing because of political Interference and private sector Interference. Health Canada, EPA, and FDA are examples of organizations that are selling out the environment and people's health.

Problem 1. None of these organizations are have enough staff to conduct their own studies into product and enviromental safety. They are not accountable and no watch dog keeps them honest.

Solutions to Problem 1. Mandate a private, independent separate study for every corporate study provided to ensure accuracy. Currently all these agencies rely on the studies provided by the companies to base there decisions on. If a company finds a problem, they will never provide that part of the study. Health Canada, EPA and FDA would also be required to source out the independent study secretly, as in no public information who they contract it out to until the report is finished to ensure that a company can not interfere with the validity of its independence. If a large discrepancy exists between the corporate study and the independent study the corporate study automatically gets investigated for fraud. If found to be fraudulent then step penalties need to be in place. A separate interpretations body made up of only scientists with specialists in each field of science and totally separate from the organization determines the final report based on the corporate study and independent study which the agencies then base their decisions on. Health Canada, FDA, and EPA are mostly business people, policy makers and generally the decision makers have no back ground in science. When the agencies get political interference or corporate interference from out side the agency decisions can and do get made because of the pressures to allow a product vs protecting human health. Internal scientists in these agencies are then told to shutup or find another job. Its why the review body must be independent of the agency so when a product is wrongly allowed, the scientist can go public with the data as a watch dog with no fear of retribution.

Examples

Shiv Chopra a Canadian researcher was fired by Health Canada when he revealed Monsanto trying to bribe the agency into allowing Bovine Growth Hormone into Canada. Their was also political pressure from the FDA because the FDA had approved it. In the end they had no choice but to ban it here. But at the same time Health Canada axed those involved in the public release of the data that forced them to ban it.

The FDA is also guilty of a massive cover up regarding Bisphenol A research, a petro-chemical product used in the creation of polycarbonate's and epoxy resins. For years the FDA argued it was a safe product but only now has started to back track on this assertion because Canada declared it a toxic substance and both Canada and the European Union now ban the use in baby bottles. New recent reports from the FDA are now raising concerns with the exposure of BPA in kids and babies.

Problem 2, the people who run these organizations generally have a back ground with a corporate company and a conflict of interest from the start. Many people from Monsanto for example infect the ranks of the FDA. Is it accidental or deliberate, who knows but the quality of decisions coming from these agencies are compromise by past relationships with the very companies seeking approval on products.

Solution to Problem 2, these are government agencies, let the people vote in the CEO's of the agency. Keep the guy at the top accountable to the people.

Lastly and important, at the federal level. The importation of products must come from Countries with similar levels of Health and Enviromental protections and standards. 1) This ensures the products we are using are safe. How many times have products been recalled from China because of to much lead or other chemicals in the product. 2) Level the playing field for companies. If its super cheap to produce products in China because there is less safety requirements, easier work force to abuse, and very limited enviromental protections then companies will move production and labour to those places to save on costs. We can't expect to protect our people and our environment if the playing field is miss matched so badly. Ban products from China until they have in place equivalent laws,enforcement ability and labour practices as we do. With a level playing field not as many jobs will be sent over seas. As is right now these protection bodies have to make bad choices to protect jobs at our, the peoples expense.

[Cold Warrior]

Laminar, things should stay impersonal.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Athens
I think your fears are baseless: yes, nowadays it takes less people to assemble, to do manual labor as, say, 50 or 100 years ago. This doesn't mean there are more unemployed, but more people doing other, qualified jobs. There was no IT industry 50 years ago. Society has never been as productive or well off as it is now -- even though it seems differently. The problems you mention, a diminishing middle class, for instance, are real, but I don't think they're connected to how we produce `goods.' At the dawn of industrialization, there was an abundance of very poor laborers who had to live in conditions we wouldn't want to have in our prisons nowadays.

I don't think my fears are baseless, and I will attempt to back them up with published data. You comment that it takes less people to do manual labor as before. And you also say it doesn't mean there is more unemployed. I don't think I ever asserted that it created more unemployed people. I did or was attempting to assert that job's where shifting from higher paid, good income producing work to lower paid work.

The backbones of our economies are the good paying jobs in scientific research, manufacturing, resources, and so on. The small independent business is another large and important backbone for our economies.

Both of these sources of well paying jobs are under attack. The good paying jobs are losing people to out sourcing to cheaper markets or with Automation losing numbers of positions required to produce the product. At the same time more product is produced then before causing less of these businesses to exist period. Look at the printing industry for example. A press that ran at 50 000 impressions a hour required 6 people to operate it a few years ago. New presses double the size and almost double the speed running at 80 000 impressions a hour require only 3 people to operate it. So you almost double your out put, and reduce the staffing by half. What happens now is a plant is able to produce triple the amount of product or more in the same physical space resulting in other plants being closed. More press time, no growth in demand means closing of other facilities. With each closing of a facility you also lose the support staff of the production units of the manufacturing. Its a terrible cycle of progress. When these printing jobs are lost, the people in those industries can't just go find another job in the printing industry because they are just not there. The jobs are lost for good. Now as each industry does the same thing, from agriculture to box making plants the net effect is less good paying jobs.

The one area that is picking up is the service based industry, the low paying fast food restaurants and retail stores for example. As families lose the well paying single income jobs of the past and are forced into low paying service based jobs, in order to make ends meet more then one job is required. This is whats happening. If you look at job loss numbers over the last 5 years and compare it to the job creation numbers you see a industry shift in the working class.

The independent businesses are under assault by the big box stores like Wal-mart. As people's incomes lower the demand for cheaper goods gets higher creating a demand for stores like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart moves into small towns and decimate the independent business owners who can't compete against such a large company. Independent businesses go out of business and communities change.

Now with people making less money even the service industry is changing and down sizing because less have less money to spend on things.

This is a list of Retail closures from chain stores in the US for 2010 of a 100 stores +

2,415 Movie Gallery(Hollywood Video, Game Crazy)
1,000 Quizno’s
690 Blockbuster
200 Waldenbooks (Borders)
175 Ford Lincoln Dealerships
173 Jones Apparel
149 f.y.e.
145 Men’s Wearhouse
120 Charming Shoppes
117 Foot Locker
117 The Walking Company
114 Payless
100 AFC (Popeye’s)
100 GameStop

Compare that to 2009 Numbers

2,639 General Motors
960 Blockbuster
789 Chrysler
567 Circuit City
461 KB Toys
450 Movie Gallery (Game Crazy, Hollywood Video)
365 Ritz Camera
273 Starbucks
287 Goody's
265 Jones Apparel Group (2009 & 2010)
240 Waldenbooks
200 Foot Locker
191 Zale Corporation
175 Van Heusen
163 Ann Taylor (by 2010)
162 Charming Shoppes
161 InkStop
160 Family Dollar
150 Popeye's (AFC Enterprises)
135 S&K Famous Brands Inc.
130 Advance America
129 Boater's World
125 F.Y.E. (Trans World Entertainment)
121 Eddie Bauer
118 Office Depot
117 Rite Aid
104 Finlay Enterprises
102 Payless Shoes
100 Albertsons
100 Gap, Inc.

Lets look at the tech industry 300 000 jobs in 2009 lost
Tech Layoffs Surge to 300,000

Competition is also under threat due to the buying and merging of companies to produce bigger and better or more efficient organizations. I will use the printing industry as a example again. 20 Years ago you had Quebecor Printing, Worldcolor, Quad Graphics, Ronald's Printing, Transcontinental and many more major players. As they competed with each other they all made less profits but thats because there was more duplication in services offered. Better prices for the retailers, more jobs for the industry and less profits for the companies. Quebecor buys out Worldcolor to become the largest Printer in the world under the name Quebecor World. plants that used to compete with each other now become redundant so they are closed. Prices are dropped to compete against the other guys who also have to drop prices. Other companies I didn't list here also start buying each other out to become bigger and more competitive. This pattern continues for years resulting in just a few big companies left. A lot more profits for the companies, a lot less work in the industry and a lot less choice for the retailers who they will print with.

I don't think my fears are baseless, the pattern is pretty clear.

Manufacturing jobs are lost with Automation reducing work force numbers and reducing facilities due to increased out put. Cheaper output reduces overall prices forcing other competitors to reduce prices through similar means. Net loss in jobs in industry. Competitors merge reducing the number of competitors allowing for closing of duplicate resources which had been competition further reducing jobs and allowing for larger profits. As competition is reduced prices stabilize and this is also bad for the buyer. People shift from high paying jobs to lower paying service jobs and have less money to spend. This has a ripple effect on the service based industry with less people purchasing the service based industry starts down sizing as well. This leads to more unemployment. Big box stores move into towns and decimate the independent business removing another important contributor to local economies. Net result, less jobs, lower paying jobs and large companies making more profits. Governments collect less taxes as well.

[BadKosh]

The problem with "Studies" is that the raw data is mostly questionable. Most idiot political entities use "Survey's" which are for the most part, loosely political BS phrased to make whatever point they want. Obama used such BS when he was shaking down banks and mortgage companies on some false racial study, California uses eco-radical BS to make laws which end up causing the problems with mud slides, fires etc. all to protect rats or somesuch 'endangered' species.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I did or was attempting to assert that job's where shifting from higher paid, good income producing work to lower paid work.

I did address that point by claiming that other well-paid jobs for highly qualified people are created instead.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Both of these sources of well paying jobs are under attack. The good paying jobs are losing people to out sourcing to cheaper markets or with Automation losing numbers of positions required to produce the product. At the same time more product is produced then before causing less of these businesses to exist period. Look at the printing industry for example. A press that ran at 50 000 impressions a hour required 6 people to operate it a few years ago. New presses double the size and almost double the speed running at 80 000 impressions a hour require only 3 people to operate it. So you almost double your out put, and reduce the staffing by half.

And you could make similar claims for other fields as well, e. g. agriculture.

Originally Posted by Athens 

This is whats happening. If you look at job loss numbers over the last 5 years and compare it to the job creation numbers you see a industry shift in the working class.

I'm not denying that we're seeing a change in the income structure and employment rate. But I don't think it's tied to increased automation.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Wal-Mart moves into small towns and decimate the independent business owners who can't compete against such a large company. Independent businesses go out of business and communities change.

Small ma and pa shops are a different kind of thing: they don't have many high- to medium-income employees, quite the contrary. There is, however, a shift from low to lower-income jobs. Worrisome? Perhaps. Any connection to automation? Nope.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Manufacturing jobs are lost with Automation reducing work force numbers and reducing facilities due to increased out put. Cheaper output reduces overall prices forcing other competitors to reduce prices through similar means. Net loss in jobs in industry.

Increased efficiency per employee is what allows rich countries such as the US, Germany and Japan to compete against China and Taiwan, for instance. Without better efficiency (e. g. due to automation), even more jobs would migrate to other countries. It also allows luxury goods to become commodities everyone can afford.

Again, I don't think the problems you mention (chiefly) attributable due to improvements in automation, that's something that has started, 25, 30 years ago. And that you're mingling different things (death of small stores, etc.) doesn't help me understand your point. I appreciate your effort to back up your argument with data. As far as I understand your main point is that `improvements in automation have led to a net decrease in wealth since people previously employed in production now have to do menial jobs.'

If that is so, only looking at production jobs would be like looking the employment statistics of horse buggy manufacturers after the introduction of cheap automobiles.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Increased efficiency per employee is what allows rich countries such as the US, Germany and Japan to compete against China and Taiwan, for instance. Without better efficiency (e. g. due to automation), even more jobs would migrate to other countries. It also allows luxury goods to become commodities everyone can afford.

I think that was my point, in order to compete against China for example the efficiency has to be increased at the cost of jobs. But the same effects are also occurring in China to with Automation actually decreasing manufacturing jobs even there.

Again, I don't think the problems you mention (chiefly) attributable due to improvements in automation, that's something that has started, 25, 30 years ago. And that you're mingling different things (death of small stores, etc.) doesn't help me understand your point. I appreciate your effort to back up your argument with data. As far as I understand your main point is that `improvements in automation have led to a net decrease in wealth since people previously employed in production now have to do menial jobs.'

If that is so, only looking at production jobs would be like looking the employment statistics of horse buggy manufacturers after the introduction of cheap automobiles.

Mixing in small business is vital to the overall economic effect as well. While a mom and pop shop pays low wages like the big box stores the local wealth generated by mom and pop stores benefit local communities and other businesses more then large big box stores. Having 10 million business owners is a better economic effect then having trillions of dollars of profits generated for a few businesses all going to share holders or out of the country totally thanx to globalization.

Look at Apple as a example of a big company. They employee tens of thousands of people locally in the service industry. They also spend billions of dollars in China and other over seas locations in manufacturing of the product. The rest of the money they generate is in a bank.

Look at Wal-Mart, they employee over a million people in service. They also send billions of dollars over seas in the manufacturing of products or purchasing of products manufactured over seas.

Neither company can afford to manufacture products here because the cost of labor is to high. So these billion dollar companies are mostly only offering low paying jobs. A SINGLE Wal-mart can close down 30 local mom and pop shops in a single community. So you have a dozen well paid people for the store like managers and the rest low paid service people and you lost 30 independent businesses, a net reduction in people with high incomes supporting other businesses in the same communities.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The problem with "Studies" is that the raw data is mostly questionable. Most idiot political entities use "Survey's" which are for the most part, loosely political BS phrased to make whatever point they want. Obama used such BS when he was shaking down banks and mortgage companies on some false racial study, California uses eco-radical BS to make laws which end up causing the problems with mud slides, fires etc. all to protect rats or somesuch 'endangered' species.

I totally agree. Look at the recycling industry. Half the stuff that is recycled shouldn't be because the recycling is more expensive and causes more pollution then using fresh material. Paper is terrible to recycle, while metals are great to recycle. A study can be turned ever which way to jusitfy the goal of the person doing the study.

I think im going to stop right now because this post has been rather difficult to keep coheient with my pain meds taking effect. I'll have to finish up later .

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Look at Apple...
Look at Wal-Mart...
Neither company can afford to manufacture products here because the cost of labor is to high. So these billion dollar companies are mostly only offering low paying jobs.

Yeah, darn Apple and all the low-paying jobs it offers

I think im going to stop right now because this post has been rather difficult to keep coheient with my pain meds taking effect.

Waaay too late for that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I think that was my point, in order to compete against China for example the efficiency has to be increased at the cost of jobs. But the same effects are also occurring in China to with Automation actually decreasing manufacturing jobs even there.

China is a booming market and their economy is growing so rapidly that the government has to take measure to decrease the rate at which it grows. I don't think the number of jobs in production is decreasing, quite the opposite. Automation just increases productivity -- which again becomes necessary because wealth in some regions of China is growing as well. Not to the level we, people who live in first-world countries, are used to, but nevertheless, their wealth is growing and work force becomes more expensive.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Mixing in small business is vital to the overall economic effect as well.

Well, yeah, but your main point is automation. And the death of small shops and small to medium-sized businesses on the retail end has little to do with automation. That's economy of scale at work where it's simply cheaper to buy 1,000 units of something rather than 10 or 50.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Look at Apple as a example of a big company. They employee tens of thousands of people locally in the service industry. They also spend billions of dollars in China and other over seas locations in manufacturing of the product. The rest of the money they generate is in a bank.

Apple is actually a good example: they have shifted production from the US to China. Yet, they still do most of the development work in Cupertino. Arguably, a software engineer is at least as qualified as a skilled worker on an assembly line. To me, you haven't even tried to take the creation of new jobs into account. Again, I'm very open to your arguments and some of your observations I agree with. But I haven't gotten one step closer understanding the underlying cause.

You mention the rise of big chains (be it food, groceries, etc.) and I see the death of smaller shops harmful to society. On the other hand, people are not willing to sustain them -- at least not now. They are not willing to pay $10 or $20 more for an iPod.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Neither company can afford to manufacture products here because the cost of labor is to high. So these billion dollar companies are mostly only offering low paying jobs.

No, because most R&D is still done in first-world regions such as the US, Europe, Japan and Israel. New Apple computers or Intel cpus aren't developed in China. So there is also a big shift in the types of jobs that in my opinion you don't take into consideration in your arguments.

Originally Posted by Athens 

So you have a dozen well paid people for the store like managers and the rest low paid service people and you lost 30 independent businesses, a net reduction in people with high incomes supporting other businesses in the same communities.

I disagree with the characterization: I think low-paid jobs connected to 30 businesses are moved to 30 lower-paid jobs. A medium-wage income to me is something that suffices to sustain a small family. I don't think job clerks in local shops qualify for that. Perhaps they used to, but that was before our expectations rose.

Many people are gleary-eyed when it comes to the past, e. g. the 50s and 60s when my parents grew up. The thing people tend to forget is that average people didn't necessarily make more money, but that their expectations (read: standard of living) were a lot lower. It was common for my parents to recycle children's clothes, for instance.

So let me ask you the following:
(1) How many jobs were lost in production in, say, the US?
(2) How many of these jobs were lost due to automation? How would you measure that?
(3) How many well-paid jobs (e. g. software engineering, research and development) were created in different sectors? What are your criteria for that?
(4) In the context of questions (1)-(3), what is the net loss of jobs?
(5) How big a factor is automation (see question (2))?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

China is a booming market and their economy is growing so rapidly that the government has to take measure to decrease the rate at which it grows. I don't think the number of jobs in production is decreasing, quite the opposite. Automation just increases productivity -- which again becomes necessary because wealth in some regions of China is growing as well. Not to the level we, people who live in first-world countries, are used to, but nevertheless, their wealth is growing and work force becomes more expensive.

I see China as what we where 100 years ago. As the country develops so will labor laws and practices and in 30 years from now the cost of producing things will start to catch up to us. Then the question is which 3rd world country will become the new source of cheap labor.

.

Apple is actually a good example: they have shifted production from the US to China. Yet, they still do most of the development work in Cupertino. Arguably, a software engineer is at least as qualified as a skilled worker on an assembly line. To me, you haven't even tried to take the creation of new jobs into account. Again, I'm very open to your arguments and some of your observations I agree with. But I haven't gotten one step closer understanding the underlying cause.

I was going to touch on the Job creation side of things but my pain meds on a empty stomach was making it hard to continue. I basically had to stop because it was getting to difficult to write anything more.

[/QUOTE]

I've been looking for stats related to that to further my arguments from sources you would accept, the US government web sites are difficult to find official numbers. With Christmas as well I haven't been able to devote much time into it either. I will find those numbers for you and try to prove my point. I think the job creation in other sectors such as R&D have slowed "End Point" down but it has not created enough jobs to replace the lost ones. But until I find those stats I cant back it up so my mission is to find those stats and hope they prove my points

I am finding numbers in other publications but they don't show a complete picture its only numbers related to what the article topics are on. So give me a little time to dig up complete stats.

[freudling]

I've actually read quite a few books and papers on this very subject. The economics of automation.

Does automation destroy free market economies? The answer is kinda yes, it does. But...

I don't have a definitive answer because it's literally impossible to predict how many new industries get flung into the fold when older ones die off and become irrelevant.

For example, the mobile computing space is booming (tablets and smartphones), and that's really an entirely new industry. Some may say the desktop computer space has been sort of dying off... well, here's a new industry that may be supplanting it. This is one example.

But, the problem with automation in a landscape of breakneck speed is that it can and does destroy the value of labour more than I think had ever been imagined. It's that there's less time now for people to prepare for the changes and to subsequently compensate for it. For example, in automative manufacturing plants, robots replacing skilled labourers. The value of labour for skilled workers goes from something in that industry to virtually nothing. Yes, manufacturing robots have jobs associated with them, but the whole idea with automation is economies of scale. Small backend personnel footprints. Lots of jobs lost, only a few highly skilled jobs created to tend to the robots.

Another example of automation destroying the value of labour. Translation. Google Translate has reduced the value of labour predicated on translators. Right now, highly skilled human translators refuse to use Google Translate pro edition because the use of it just makes Google's translation engine and database better. There are some language combinations on Google Translate that it's incredibly good at, in some ways better than what a human could do, although with more errors. And what has happened is people use the automation, get a jump start, and the translators get paid half or even less to just clean up the text.

But many types of documents... people have just been sticking with Google's automated system for translating, taking work away from Translators.

Another example 'could' very well be digital entertainment vs. physical. Like Blockbuster and other video stores suffering in business. Renting movies is now all based on automated technology. You don't have to go to a brick and mortar store and deal with humans. iTunes, for instance, has huge economies of scale. I've seen several small video stores now go out of business. And having spoken to them, they said their business started suffering when iTunes launched movie rentals. And iTunes is just automated software. Yes, I know, they have IT people tending to them. But it's nowhere near the number of employees it would take to physically rent movies to people on a global scale, for instance.

Cable companies are also losing customers to automated services like iTunes (TV shows), Hulu, etc.

I don't think it's a question of whether automation destroys the value of labour/whole industries/economies, it's a question of how the economy reacts. And by that I mean, what's the net output? Are as many or more new jobs being spun out?

One big concern with automation is how fast things are changing. It's almost like we are entering into that singularity. It's just gotten so easy to automate things and do things yourself in business that there's less and less need for other people. And even if new industries spawn up, the amount of competition, etc. is staggering because of how quickly people now come to market.

Soon, we may be in a situation where each individual person is a producer. Imagine a world where after, say the iPad was released, there were another 100 million variants on the market, because with so much automation, virtually anybody could manufacture one. Well, this is a bit of hyperbole, but the beginnings of this are happening.

Publishing is one industry. Any idiot can be a publisher in minutes now, with automated software like WordPress, and that's exactly what the world is. More people than not are publishers, whether it's just for fun or for money...

The danger with automation is that, because at its core it is trying to reduce costs as much as possible, it may hurt businesses in relation to each other. You would think their profits would go up because of automation, but that's not true. It's not true because everyone else is able to use automation to make products cheaper, and faster, too. There's just much more parity. So prices fall, because they are all competing with each other.

And with so much middle-class restructuring, the consumers who we rely on the most to spend their money on widgets and gadgets don't have the pockets anymore because their value of labour has been reduced, in some cases, to virtually nothing.

What's important to point out is we're in a unique time. Change is so fast, faster than ever imagined. Don't even bother comparing today with the beginnings of the industrial revolution. It's nothing like that time. Everything today is software, software, software... and it's a knowledge-based economy, not an industrial one.

Automation could be more of a problem for us in the short-term because of some of the reasons I mentioned here, and there's more to this story...

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I've been looking for stats related to that to further my arguments from sources you would accept, the US government web sites are difficult to find official numbers. With Christmas as well I haven't been able to devote much time into it either. I will find those numbers for you and try to prove my point. I think the job creation in other sectors such as R&D have slowed "End Point" down but it has not created enough jobs to replace the lost ones. But until I find those stats I cant back it up so my mission is to find those stats and hope they prove my points

I am finding numbers in other publications but they don't show a complete picture its only numbers related to what the article topics are on. So give me a little time to dig up complete stats.

So instead of looking at data and forming an educated opinion from that, you've chosen your stance and are now searching for data to back up the stance you've already chosen? You know what kind of people do that, don't you?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So instead of looking at data and forming an educated opinion from that, you've chosen your stance and are now searching for data to back up the stance you've already chosen? You know what kind of people do that, don't you?

No, further from the truth. I am looking for ONLINE sources of information that I can easily link to and share with you that is of a acceptable quality and source vs going back to the library borrowing the books on the topic and scanning pages for exerts and directing people to the library to further read. A person can be well educated in a topic over years of reading different materials and sources and still be in a position of having to search for the same material at a later date when asked to prove it. Example, video documentaries on a verity of topics are a bit hard to share in a forum especially if copyrighted material requiring finding a different source that is easy to share on a forum. So shut the up.

Good examples of Video Documentaries

Tapped
Flow: Tor Love of Water
Maxed Out
Hiroshima: BBC History of World War 2 (A Dam good video I highly recommend)
Blue Planet Series is awesome....
The Yes Men
Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State (A Dam good series I highly recommend)
This Film is not yet rated
The Union - The business of getting high (Excellent video)
Root of All Evil - Excellent Video
The Enemies of Reason


On my cue list for this week alone

Homo Toxicus - a look at over 100 000 chemicals created since world war 2 that contaminate the world
Winter Soldier - a 1972 documentary that was banned by network TV that looks at reports of atrocities committed by US soldiers in the Vietnam War
A Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash
Wild China - 6 Part Series so this one will take some time.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So instead of looking at data and forming an educated opinion from that, you've chosen your stance and are now searching for data to back up the stance you've already chosen? You know what kind of people do that, don't you?

He asked a question in the beginning. Are we?... You know who else does this? Scientists. It's called a hypothesis that needs to go on to be substantiated.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by freudling 

He asked a question in the beginning. Are we?

Hardly. He pitch himself a softball and then whacked at it. That wasn't really a question. It didn't even have a question mark

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It didn't even have a question mark

This isn't a sentence because there is no proper period...

Just go away if you're not going to contribute to the topic. Discuss data, point out things in the market, save the nerdy, waste of text for another thread.

In summary, automation can and does erode the value of labour, and reduces the exchange value of commodities.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by freudling 

This isn't a sentence because there is no proper period...

Just go away if you're not going to contribute to the topic. Discuss data, point out things in the market, save the nerdy, waste of text for another thread.

If you read the OP past just the title, you'd agree with me. He wasn't asking he was telling.

In summary, automation can and does erode the value of labour, and reduces the exchange value of commodities.

Automation reduces the cost of commodities. Calling "cost" "value" is just spin.

Ok so it took more labor 30 years ago to manufacture a VCR than it does today. What does that mean in the big picture, does it mean that the overall consumer demand is being saturated by automated VCR manufacturers? Not in the slightest. What happens instead is that consumer demand rises to meet supply. VCRs were a luxury item 30 years ago, now their descendants (PVRs and flatscreen TVs) aren't even a luxury, they're the expectation. There will always be more demand, it is limited only by the availability of products. Products go obsolete, even product classes go obsolete, but so what? Just become a part of the next generation of products, and the next one after that. There is no shortage of these. Meanwhile, as a consumer you are living in the lap of luxury, unless you let your expectations grow faster than production (meaning only that your obscene luxury will taste bitter in your mouth, but this is your own fault). Of course, these expectations are always growing let's not lose sight of that. Gone are the days of worrying about not putting food on the table, now what we worry about is not putting minutes on our wireless plans. Boo-fricking-hoo. The fact is, we are still materially more well-off than at any time in human history, and this is due in no small part to..... automation! Let's not lose perspective here.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by freudling 

He asked a question in the beginning. Are we?... You know who else does this? Scientists. It's called a hypothesis that needs to go on to be substantiated.

No, scientists look at all relevant data, then form a conclusion based on that. All I see is him making up his mind, then going to look for data to support the outcome he wants.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

No, scientists look at all relevant data, then form a conclusion based on that. All I see is him making up his mind, then going to look for data to support the outcome he wants.

Wrong. The scientific method is simply substantiating or refuting a hypothesis. A hypothesis can spawn from data, or it can come from 'thin air'. A thought, a dream, an idea... without being exposed to any data before.

And in general, this is how academics works. On the one hand, people get ideas and then investigate the data to see if there is any evidence for it. That means evidence for and against. Then they write books and papers on it, substantiating their position with data, etc. There's nothing wrong, obscure, etc. about this. This is normative, but so is being exposed to data first, then forming a conclusion.

Example about forming a hypothesis first, then checking the data. I think people are getting married a lot later than they did. I want to write a paper about this. Now I have to go and look up statistics. I find that indeed, the data supports this hypothesis. I write a paper about it, including data that I went and found that substantiates it. I also include counter-data and discuss it.

Moving along...

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you read the OP past just the title, you'd agree with me. He wasn't asking he was telling.


Automation reduces the cost of commodities. Calling "cost" "value" is just spin.

Ok so it took more labor 30 years ago to manufacture a VCR than it does today. What does that mean in the big picture, does it mean that the overall consumer demand is being saturated by automated VCR manufacturers? Not in the slightest. What happens instead is that consumer demand rises to meet supply. VCRs were a luxury item 30 years ago, now their descendants (PVRs and flatscreen TVs) aren't even a luxury, they're the expectation. There will always be more demand, it is limited only by the availability of products. Products go obsolete, even product classes go obsolete, but so what? Just become a part of the next generation of products, and the next one after that. There is no shortage of these. Meanwhile, as a consumer you are living in the lap of luxury, unless you let your expectations grow faster than production (meaning only that your obscene luxury will taste bitter in your mouth, but this is your own fault). Of course, these expectations are always growing let's not lose sight of that. Gone are the days of worrying about not putting food on the table, now what we worry about is not putting minutes on our wireless plans. Boo-fricking-hoo. The fact is, we are still materially more well-off than at any time in human history, and this is due in no small part to..... automation! Let's not lose perspective here.

What rambling. You don't understand automation, and you especially don't understand what has been written above. Read it again.

And we are more well-off than at any other time in human history? Really? No, we aren't in a recession. No, the unemployment rate in the US isn't just shy of 10%. No, US bankruptcy rates didn't double over the last few years. No, there aren't 2 billion people living off of less than $1 a day. No, Ireland and India aren't going bankrupt. No, hundreds of civilian people weren't killed in a decade long war in the middle-east. No, there is no corruption within government. No, President Obama didn't call Steve Jobs to ask him how to fix a faltering US economy. No, there has not been a housing crash in the US. No, cancer rates aren't the highest they've ever been.

There's no problems whatever. Everything is perfect!

Now, read the sentence again, and again, and again. In summary, automation can and does erode the value of labour, and reduces the exchange value of commodities.

I have stated that I can't say for certain that automation is significantly damaging to an economy overall, because I don't know the net output of shifting industries. We'd have to review a whole bunch of data and apply production functions to it. But I suspect at this outset that automation is part of the problem.

The examples stand. Netflix/iTunes > Blockbuster/small video stores. There might be a link to automation there and faltering brick and mortar businesses. In fact, if we do a thought experiment, if there was no way to rent movies online, I suspect video rental stores would be doing a lot more business.

And... Google Translate>Translation industry. Robots>skilled automative labourers. Wordpress>publishers.

Now you get market saturation, markets that resemble more than not perfect states of competition. Prices crash.

There's also some interesting sort of counter-examples. Like ATMs/bank machines. Still lots of bank tellers, they didn't lose their jobs.

But with so much automation springing up everywhere, and how people get displaced from industries so quickly, it maybe a short-term problem for people because they don't have time to compensate with such quick change.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Wrong. The scientific method is simply substantiating or refuting a hypothesis. A hypothesis can spawn from data, or it can come from 'thin air'. A thought, a dream, an idea... without being exposed to any data before.

And in general, this is how academics works.

You're missing my point.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You're missing my point.

No, I'm not. I understand it. Now, moving along, automation and the economy, chime in on that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by freudling 

What rambling. You don't understand automation, and you especially don't understand what has been written above. Read it again.

Right back at you, sport

And we are more well-off than at any other time in human history? Really? No, we aren't in a recession. No, the unemployment rate in the US isn't just shy of 10%. No, US bankruptcy rates didn't double over the last few years. No, there has not been a housing crash in the US.

And yet individuals who are experiencing unemployment, recession, and bankruptcy still have smart-phones and flat-panel TVs, things that even the ultra-super-mega rich didn't have back in the "good old days" of less automation. In this respect the poor of today are richer than the rich of 30 years ago. The point is these are rich-people problems, it's not like they're having trouble getting food or shelter.

No, there aren't 2 billion people living off of less than $1 a day. No, hundreds of civilian people weren't killed in a decade long war in the middle-east. No, there is no corruption within government.

How are you going to tie this in with automation? *cough* who's rambling now? *cough*

No, cancer rates aren't the highest they've ever been.

My perception is that most cancers are stable or dropping, with lung cancer the sole exception, and that only because it's a delayed reaction to last century's smoking surge (IOW it's a problem that has already been solved for the most part) (example). But even if you're right, this is another rich-person problem: if you don't die of anything else, eventually you will die of the age-related diseases with no cure, of which cancer is one. Longevity limited only by these is a luxury, quite honestly.

There's no problems whatever. Everything is perfect!

Please, I didn't say that. I said there are less problems, and everything is at least better than it used to be. The "good old days" are a myth.

The examples stand. Netflix/iTunes > Blockbuster/small video stores. There might be a link to automation there and faltering brick and mortar businesses. In fact, if we do a thought experiment, if there was no way to rent movies online, I suspect video rental stores would be doing a lot more business.

And... Google Translate>Translation industry. Robots>skilled automative labourers. Wordpress>publishers.

Don't forget 8-Track, they were eaten alive by the automation bogeyman And the scribes that were displaced by moveable type printing presses, another automated tyrant

Blockbuster built itself on automation, you think there would be video rentals without automation in the first place? If it weren't for automation, VCRs would still be a niche market, and BlockBuster would be AnkleBiter, a tiny boutique vendor. Automation giveth, and automation taketh away, but the one constant is that consumer expectations grow more and more every year. There may be shortages of certain things (oil?), but a use for idle hands is not one of them.

Now you get market saturation, markets that resemble more than not perfect states of competition. Prices crash.

I bet buggy-whip manufacturers are shedding a tear for you.

But with so much automation springing up everywhere, and how people get displaced from industries so quickly, it maybe a short-term problem for people because they don't have time to compensate with such quick change.

This is a good point, on the other hand your main complaint is that automation gives everyone too much power to act instantly, and bring products to market faster. Maybe they should take those lemons and make lemonade, instead of looking for a scapegoat.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by freudling 

No, I'm not. I understand it.

That has yet to be seen.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Right back at you, sport

And yet individuals who are experiencing unemployment, recession, and bankruptcy still have smart-phones and flat-panel TVs, things that even the ultra-super-mega rich didn't have back in the "good old days" of less automation. In this respect the poor of today are richer than the rich of 30 years ago. The point is these are rich-people problems, it's not like they're having trouble getting food or shelter.

This is hilarious. No, there's no recession. No, people aren't having financial difficulty. But I see people walking around with smartphones! So everyone must have a smartphone! All across the world! And smartphones mean that it's a rich-people problem! No, people haven't replaced their landline phones with smartphones! I really know what I'm talking about! Look at all this data I posted to substantiate what I just said! See it, under the ether of nonhingness? LOL.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My perception is that most cancers are stable or dropping, with lung cancer the sole exception, and that only because it's a delayed reaction to last century's smoking surge (IOW it's a problem that has already been solved for the most part) (example). But even if you're right, this is another rich-person problem: if you don't die of anything else, eventually you will die of the age-related diseases with no cure, of which cancer is one. Longevity limited only by these is a luxury, quite honestly.

This is absurd. Cancer is a rich-people problem? The idiot meter rises...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Please, I didn't say that. I said there are less problems, and everything is at least better than it used to be. The "good old days" are a myth.

Show data that supports the claim that there are less problems today than there were in the past.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Don't forget 8-Track, they were eaten alive by the automation bogeyman And the scribes that were displaced by moveable type printing presses, another automated tyrant

When evidence supporting the contrary to your opinion based on zero data is advanced, resort to endless loops of irrelevancy.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Blockbuster built itself on automation, you think there would be video rentals without automation in the first place? If it weren't for automation, VCRs would still be a niche market, and BlockBuster would be AnkleBiter, a tiny boutique vendor. Automation giveth, and automation taketh away, but the one constant is that consumer expectations grow more and more every year. There may be shortages of certain things (oil?), but a use for idle hands is not one of them.

I know it's hard to understand this concept of automation, how software can replace people and physical businesses, as in digital movie rentals.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This is a good point, on the other hand your main complaint is that automation gives everyone too much power to act instantly, and bring products to market faster. Maybe they should take those lemons and make lemonade, instead of looking for a scapegoat.

? Anyway, anyone else want to chime in?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That has yet to be seen.

You've added really zero to this topic. It's the nerdy, immature people like you that hijack and derail threads. I hope I'm not alone in ignoring your posts in this thread from now on.

Is automation an issue? Talk about the data, and stop bsing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by freudling 

This is hilarious. No, there's no recession.

I didn't say there's no recession, I said the actual standard of living for people in a recession is much higher than what it used to be. That's why they have to use euphemisms like "financial difficulty."

No, people aren't having financial difficulty.

BTW, at what point in history have there NOT been people having "financial difficulty?"

No, people haven't replaced their landline phones with smartphones! I really know what I'm talking about! Look at all this data I posted to substantiate what I just said! See it, under the ether of nonhingness?

You're a big fat hypocrite. I've posted more data in this thread than you have.

Here's some (more) data to substantiate what I said, with citations if you want to second guess it:

"Adults living in (30.9%) or near poverty (23.8%) were more likely than higher income adults to be living in households with only wireless telephones. (Source: Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2008, Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, May 2009.)"

Wireless and Landline Phones - ACA International

How does that crow taste?

This is absurd. Cancer is a rich-people problem? The idiot meter rises...

And yet you can't refute the data? Doctor, heal thyself.

Show data that supports the claim that there are less problems today than there were in the past.

I think it's your turn to show some data, stud.

Oh how can I resist, here's one showing that even in this supposedly destitute time we live in, we still manage to get more house to ourselves:
Unfashionably Economic: Statistical Fallacy #317: Holding Constant that which Changes. See: 'median household income'.

That's one problem at least we have less of: shelter.

When evidence supporting the contrary to your opinion based on zero data is advanced, resort to endless loops of irrelevancy.

Oh I get it now, that's what you're doing.

I know it's hard to understand this concept of automation, how software can replace people and physical businesses, as in digital movie rentals.

How exactly did they press all those DVDs on the shelves, if not using automation? Were they etched by hand?

Automation improves our standard of living, by allowing us to afford more junk (which we like, such as DVDs and cell phones). Some jobs are lost.
This pushes our expectations higher, creating more demand for new industries, in fields that never would have survived before because of cost.
These new industries employ more people to meet the new, formerly non-existent demand. The jobs from step 1 are now regained.

The only problem is when in step 2, our expectations expand faster than our ability to produce new goods. This is what you're experiencing now. Even though our lives are objectively better due to all our new stuff (including more of the old stuff like housing and cars), you feel like they're worse than ever just because your expectations have outpaced our standard of living increases. I'm not saying it couldn't be even better, I'm just saying let's keep it in perspective here, and that trying to regress to the past out of a misplaced sense of "the good old days" is a recipe for trouble.

Edit: one other problem is that some people (especially older people) develop a specific image of themselves, and when it comes time in step 3 to change fields, they refuse. They could work if they wanted to, they simply don't want to, if it means deviating from the image they have of themselves. For example, they are a manufacturer, or a translator, or rental store clerk, (or a buggy-whip maker) and they just don't want to be anything else. I'm sorry, but they will have to yield, because reality won't.

[Cold Warrior]

This is obviously an intense topic, but the personal insults will attract infractions (and have already).

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You're missing my point.

You never had a point

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

This is obviously an intense topic, but the personal insults will attract infractions (and have already).

Its not an intense topic, there is some serious issues with respectful interaction between members which will affect any and all topics because some people choose to behave poorly by trolling around threads adding absolutely zero content and instigating conflict just for the sake of it....

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I didn't say there's no recession, I said the actual standard of living for people in a recession is much higher than what it used to be. That's why they have to use euphemisms like "financial difficulty."

Show evidence to support this claim, including data.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Here's some (more) data to substantiate what I said, with citations if you want to second guess it:

"Adults living in (30.9%) or near poverty (23.8%) were more likely than higher income adults to be living in households with only wireless telephones. (Source: Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2008, Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, May 2009.)"

Wireless and Landline Phones - ACA International

How does that crow taste?

What exactly does this statistic inform on here? What relevance does it have? Here's what it says though: people who are more poor don't have the money to afford both a landline telephone and a wireless phone. And because they have wireless phones, that means that they aren't poor? That means that they aren't unemployed? That means that their house has not been foreclosed on? That means that they have a high standard of living? Right...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And yet you can't refute the data? Doctor, heal thyself.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think it's your turn to show some data, stud.

No problem Uncle.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh how can I resist, here's one showing that even in this supposedly destitute time we live in, we still manage to get more house to ourselves:
Unfashionably Economic: Statistical Fallacy #317: Holding Constant that which Changes. See: 'median household income'.

That's one problem at least we have less of: shelter.

Ooooooh, aaaaah, a world outside the US.

UN says 1.5 billion people on planet earth live in darkness.

New UN energy report says 1.5 billion people worldwide live in darkness

Poverty today. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.

Poverty Facts and Stats — Global Issues

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/externa...DF/wps4620.pdf

But the world doesn't have problems, not like it used to. No, no, everything is great.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How exactly did they press all those DVDs on the shelves, if not using automation? Were they etched by hand?

The people who work at brick and mortar video rental stores lose their jobs, so does anyone associated with physical DVD manufacturing directly related to that space, and everyone else in that retail industry. It's all digital, and it's mostly automated software that manages it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Automation improves our standard of living, by allowing us to afford more junk (which we like, such as DVDs and cell phones). Some jobs are lost.
This pushes our expectations higher, creating more demand for new industries, in fields that never would have survived before because of cost.
These new industries employ more people to meet the new, formerly non-existent demand. The jobs from step 1 are now regained.

Show data to support this.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The only problem is when in step 2, our expectations expand faster than our ability to produce new goods. This is what you're experiencing now. Even though our lives are objectively better due to all our new stuff (including more of the old stuff like housing and cars), you feel like they're worse than ever just because your expectations have outpaced our standard of living increases. I'm not saying it couldn't be even better, I'm just saying let's keep it in perspective here, and that trying to regress to the past out of a misplaced sense of "the good old days" is a recipe for trouble.

? Anyway, you're the only one who has injected this idea that we're somehow seeking out the nostalgia of the 'good old days'. No idea where this came from. For the record, I haven't once thought about the 'good old days' in association with this topic. You're just projecting your own assumptions onto this. Not once have I actually said I am against automation, either. This conversation is simply about whether automation can adversely affect people and the economy. It doesn't matter whether I like automation or not. But in fact, I do like automation, but that won't change whether there are forces at play with it and the economy, whether good or bad. It doesn't matter what I think of it in that respect.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Edit: one other problem is that some people (especially older people) develop a specific image of themselves, and when it comes time in step 3 to change fields, they refuse. They could work if they wanted to, they simply don't want to, if it means deviating from the image they have of themselves. For example, they are a manufacturer, or a translator, or rental store clerk, (or a buggy-whip maker) and they just don't want to be anything else. I'm sorry, but they will have to yield, because reality won't.

This completely oversimplifies the problem, if indeed it really is one. And that is, because things change so fast now... because innovation happens so quickly... and because automation can so quickly displace people from their industries... people don't have as much time to compensate and retrain themselves, especially older people. That's what I'm seeing in industry right now. More research is needed on this topic here.

Google Translate, for example, has had real effects on the translation industry, and it has happened incredibly fast. Customers, and, from what I can see, people like you, don't really care about the adverse effects of automation like this on real people. People who have spent most of their professional life in one industry, that has been, a staple industry since forever. It's now being dismantled by automation. Do I think we should erradicate Google Translate? No, but I do understand and see the adverse effects on real people in society who become displaced, and then have to find extra work in what is one of the most serious global economic recessions we have ever faced.

And lastly, cancer is not a rich person's problem, because anybody can get cancer, anywhere. It's both genetic and linked to environment/medications. People who are poor get cancer. People who are middle-class get cancer. People who are rich get cancer.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Show evidence to support this claim, including data.

We have better stuff now, and more of it. I can't believe you aren't getting this.

What exactly does this statistic inform on here? What relevance does it have?

We have better stuff now, and more of it.

Here's what it says though: people who are more poor don't have the money to afford both a landline telephone and a wireless phone. And because they have wireless phones, that means that they aren't poor?

"Poor" is a strictly relative term. For example (one I think you'll sympathize with), they certainly aren't poor when compared to people in Africa living on only a dollar a day.

But yes, I think they are poor, but they are still not as poor as the poor of 30 years ago, by a significant margin. Heck, they're actually richer than the rich of 100 years ago. That's what I mean when I say the problems are not as bad as they were in the past. I literally don't know how you can deny this. Per this example, cell phones are a new technology that genuinely improves the quality of life, it is not just a toy, but it is something that most people have, and something that no one had 30 years ago.

That means that they aren't unemployed? That means that their house has not been foreclosed on? That means that they have a high standard of living? Right...

HighER. Not "high," "higher." Comprende?

Ooooooh, aaaaah, a world outside the US.

UN says 1.5 billion people on planet earth live in darkness.

New UN energy report says 1.5 billion people worldwide live in darkness

Poverty today. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.

Poverty Facts and Stats — Global Issues

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/externa...DF/wps4620.pdf

And again, none of that is caused by automation. Remember, the topic?

The people who work at brick and mortar video rental stores lose their jobs, so does anyone associated with physical DVD manufacturing directly related to that space, and everyone else in that retail industry. It's all digital, and it's mostly automated software that manages it.

DVDs are digital

And this is exactly how they came to power in the first place. Live by the sword, die by the sword. What goes around comes around. They're just being overtaken by the same process that they themselves overtook using.

? Anyway, you're the only one who has injected this idea that we're somehow seeking out the nostalgia of the 'good old days'. No idea where this came from.

It came from the very first post. Did you read that post?

Not once have I actually said I am against automation, either. This conversation is simply about whether automation can adversely affect people and the economy.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Again referring to the first post, automation is "not the right thing," "a big disservice to society," and "bleak." It is not about whether there are negative aspects in theory, it is a value judgement.

This completely oversimplifies the problem, if indeed it really is one. And that is, because things change so fast now... because innovation happens so quickly... and because automation can so quickly displace people from their industries... people don't have as much time to compensate and retrain themselves, especially older people. That's what I'm seeing in industry right now. More research is needed on this topic here.

You are oversimplifying the issue too, sir. Because things change so fast now, because innovation happens so quickly, and because automation can so quickly instantiate a new industry, people need less time to compensate by generating a new alternative business model. You are emphasizing the negatives and entirely ignoring the positives. How can you think that doesn't oversimplify?

Google Translate, for example, has had real effects on the translation industry

Ford Motors for example had real effects on the buggy-whip industry too, but why should we be particularly sad about that? Adapt and grow, don't stagnate.

Customers, and, from what I can see, people like you, don't really care about the adverse effects of automation like this on real people.

It's just that the positive effects outweigh the negative. The positive effects touch far more people than the negative effects do, and the people adversely effected need to find a new job regardless. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

People who have spent most of their professional life in one industry, that has been, a staple industry since forever.

I don't see how this should matter. Changing careers isn't that bad, lots of people do it. Why should we feel bad for someone just for that reason?
And why should we care if there is turnover in the category of "staple industries forever?" I'm sure the buggy-whip industry was a staple before the car was invented, but were we wrong to replace it with a more modern "staple industry?" What were the downsides of this replacement, in the big picture?

It's now being dismantled by automation. Do I think we should erradicate Google Translate? No, but I do understand and see the adverse effects on real people in society who become displaced, and then have to find extra work in what is one of the most serious global economic recessions we have ever faced.

Capitalism is supposed to pick winners and losers. That's the intended effect. Calling it "adverse effects" is disingenuous. If we fret over this type of "adverse effect," we are just undermining the whole system, and we'll end up with nothing but "losers," in the capitalist sense.

And lastly, cancer is not a rich person's problem, because anybody can get cancer, anywhere. It's both genetic and linked to environment/medications. People who are poor get cancer. People who are middle-class get cancer. People who are rich get cancer.

Right. Cancer affects everyone, while other forms of death (accidents, exhaustion, malnutrition, crime, war, etc) affect primarily the poor. That is why a trend away from the poor-specific causes of death is a symptom of wealth.

By the way, you never acknowledge the DATA I linked about this, showing that your conclusion is backward, that cancer is not in fact increasing. Are you going to ignore it?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

We have better stuff now, and more of it. I can't believe you aren't getting this. We have better stuff now, and more of it.

We have better stuff now. How insightful. Your logic is flawed. Because someone has a cell phone, they have a better standard of living compared to before, whenever that before you refer to was.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Poor" is a strictly relative term. For example (one I think you'll sympathize with), they certainly aren't poor when compared to people in Africa living on only a dollar a day.

But yes, I think they are poor, but they are still not as poor as the poor of 30 years ago, by a significant margin. Heck, they're actually richer than the rich of 100 years ago. That's what I mean when I say the problems are not as bad as they were in the past. I literally don't know how you can deny this. Per this example, cell phones are a new technology that genuinely improves the quality of life, it is not just a toy, but it is something that most people have, and something that no one had 30 years ago.

"Heck". LOL. How 2 dimensional. Economies and people's standard of living are a function of cell phone use.... LOL. You know why people use cell phones? Because they can get plans for about as cheap as they can get set up with a landline.

Anyway, yes, there are more cell phones now than there were 30 years ago, and Africa is saturated with the cheap Nokia variety, but there's also record home foreclosures in the United States, and widespread poverty across the planet. Wow, they sure have made all our lives better. Or, they sure are an indicator of a high standard of living...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

HighER. Not "high," "higher." Comprende?

Show the data. But here's the data from the UN and World Bank on the state of the world's standard of living, as already posted:

Poverty today. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. And no, "poor" or "poverty" is not relative in these reports. They have standardized the definitions. Almost 1 billion people in the world today are hungry, starving... they can't get enough to eat because they are poor. Yet, there are more cell phones now than ever. Why is there still so much poverty...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And again, none of that is caused by automation. Remember, the topic?

You're the one that started this conversation about this stuff. Making all these claims about how the standard of living today is better than before. I'm addressing that. Not once did I say that automation was responsible for widespread global poverty, etc. I don't know if it has a large part to do with it because I haven't reviewed enough data to say either way. I'm not saying that technology and modern conveniences have not made some of our lives better, but, globally, poverty, crime, corruption, wars... as alive as ever.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

DVDs are digital

DVDs are not digital. They're physical, real objects that require airplanes, boats and trucks to deliver them to retail chains for sale to consumers. A digital movie rented from iTunes is completely digital, save for the server it resides on. No trucks to deliver it. No manufacturing plants to cut the plastic cases and covers. No shrink wrap. No stores for them to sit in. Nothing. Just digital.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And this is exactly how they came to power in the first place. Live by the sword, die by the sword. What goes around comes around. They're just being overtaken by the same process that they themselves overtook using.

More incredible insight. This does not refute that automation can erode the value of labour, not in anyway. The point of the example was to show how automation can displace people in the workforce. Your resorting to trite expressions like "live by the..." is irrelevant and contributes nothing to the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm afraid you're wrong. Again referring to the first post, automation is "not the right thing," "a big disservice to society," and "bleak." It is not about whether there are negative aspects in theory, it is a value judgement.

Not once have I actually said I am against automation, either. As to the OP, that's his perogative. And so what if it's a value judgement... all that matters is whether there actually is a link between automation and adverse economic and social effects. I don't care if the OP makes a value judgement... he just started off a discussion... focus on the topic and forget about that...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You are oversimplifying the issue too, sir. Because things change so fast now, because innovation happens so quickly, and because automation can so quickly instantiate a new industry, people need less time to compensate by generating a new alternative business model. You are emphasizing the negatives and entirely ignoring the positives. How can you think that doesn't oversimplify?

First, you know and I know it's not that easy for people to retrain themselves for new industries, no matter the age. But of course it's harder for people who are older. And especially in a recession. Second, you are speaking more from a business owner's angle. So what if you can make quick alternative business models. People lose work. They go broke. They need to find work. They need to retrain themselves. They can't pay their bills. You're being a tad facetious. Read the news... read the reports... read the data. There are highly educated, skilled people out of work. They can't find work.

9.3% unemployment rate in the US right now. Widespread poverty worldwide.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ford Motors for example had real effects on the buggy-whip industry too, but why should we be particularly sad about that? Adapt and grow, don't stagnate.

Yes, I agree, adapt and grow. I have no idea, though, what the hell buggy-whip industry means.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's just that the positive effects outweigh the negative. The positive effects touch far more people than the negative effects do, and the people adversely effected need to find a new job regardless. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

More one liners...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see how this should matter. Changing careers isn't that bad, lots of people do it. Why should we feel bad for someone just for that reason?
And why should we care if there is turnover in the category of "staple industries forever?" I'm sure the buggy-whip industry was a staple before the car was invented, but were we wrong to replace it with a more modern "staple industry?" What were the downsides of this replacement, in the big picture?

I don't think anyone is really saying we feel bad just to feel bad for people who lose their job to industry shifts, although, personally, I do, because, you know, I have empathy for human beings, because I kinda am one. This is an age old problem that you are simply dismissing as being a problem. When factories close, when industries dry up, it's news. It's big news. Because people are out of work, and they have bills to pay. They have mortgages to pay. It's not like all these new industries are just thriving and waiting to soak them up. The industries themselves have to start bringing in some money. People need to be retrained, but they have no money...

One indicator of the effects of job loss is home foreclosures. With the estimates for 2011 from Economists from the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders estimate, the US could end up with up to 17 million foreclosures out of 68 million homeowners.

Another indicator is the national unemployment rate. It's 9.3% in the US. Software programmers, for instance, have been hit. Many have had trouble finding work.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Capitalism is supposed to pick winners and losers. That's the intended effect. Calling it "adverse effects" is disingenuous. If we fret over this type of "adverse effect," we are just undermining the whole system, and we'll end up with nothing but "losers," in the capitalist sense.

Oversimplifying. Having adverse effects is one thing, having an overall adverse effect on systems is something totally different. As for this latter in this context, I wouldn't be able to answer regarding automation and net effects to the economy overall, unless I had a team of people and time to review the data. Read this over and over until you eventually get it. Until you eventually understand what this means:

In summary, automation can and does erode the value of labour, and reduces the exchange value of commodities.

There are books from Economists on the subject, and papers... and I have read several. You might want to try reading some background material.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Right. Cancer affects everyone, while other forms of death (accidents, exhaustion, malnutrition, crime, war, etc) affect primarily the poor. That is why a trend away from the poor-specific causes of death is a symptom of wealth.

There is a trend away from poor-specific causes of death? Show the data.

[freudling]

Oh, and Uncle Skeleton, I forgot to address your "statistics" on cancer. You say cancer is a problem of the wealthy and that it's declining. Here's a summary from the World Health Organization's data for people on planet earth. Imagine, a whole world outside the Unites States. Just imagine it.

QUICK CANCER FACTS

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide: it accounted for 7.9 million deaths (around 13% of all deaths) in 2007.
Lung, stomach, liver, colon and breast cancer cause the most cancer deaths each year.
The most frequent types of cancer differ between men and women.
About 30% of cancer deaths can be prevented.
Tobacco use is the single most important risk factor for cancer.
Cancer arises from a change in one single cell. The change may be started by external agents and inherited genetic factors.
About 72% of all cancer deaths in 2007 occurred in low- and middle-income countries.
Deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue rising, with an estimated 12 million deaths in 2030.

And:

Q: Are the number of cancer cases increasing or decreasing in the world?

A: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and the total number of cases globally is increasing.

WHO | Cancer

What else you got Uncle?

[freudling]

Here's an interesting, potential technology that could make us all manufacturers sooner, rather than later. Imagine a world where everyone could "print" light fixtures, office chairs, etc. and what this would mean to companies like IKEA. No more swedish meatballs for me!

.MGX opens world's first store dedicated to 3D printed goods -- Engadget

[mattyb]

I wonder if those that made books thought the same thing as the OP when Gutenburg invented the printing press.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by freudling 

And... Google Translate>Translation industry.

Sorry, but I gotta say here that you're a little out of your element. Using computer software to help translators is nothing new, as a matter of fact, they're a standard tool. In most instances where a translation is necessary (contracts, software, manuals, negotiations), Google Translate will be useless you. Professional translation software is also useless if not used in conjunction with a human brain.
(Translation software is particularly useful when translation manuals, software and help where the same formulations are re-used time and again to improve readability. These text blocks then have fixed translations that are or aren't adapted by the translator. Unless you want to criticize the use of translation software as a tool, but it definitely wasn't Google who killed the translation business.)

Originally Posted by freudling

Poverty today. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. And no, "poor" or "poverty" is not relative in these reports. They have standardized the definitions. Almost 1 billion people in the world today are hungry, starving... they can't get enough to eat because they are poor. Yet, there are more cell phones now than ever. Why is there still so much poverty...

And that's because these countries have so much automation that there simply isn't enough work for everyone? These countries usually don't have any industry of their own to speak of. Nor do these people have the school education necessary to work in `better' jobs (be it before or after automation).

Automation is relevant only to first- and some second-world countries with well-developed industries, not poor countries such as Afghanistan. And in these first- and second-world countries, the standard of living has indeed steadily improved.