Cheap labor vs automation

[aociswundumho]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world. Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

 

[NatMorton]

Speaking of automation, I was reading a story on driverless taxis and had not realized how prevalent they now are in some western cities. Waymo, Alphabet Inc's driverless service, now books over 50,000 paid rides a week in SF.

Next time I'm in SF I need to book one, but man, I will be nervous as hell riding in a car with no driver.

 

[tshade]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world. Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

I agree------------------not sure why anyone would be against this.........?????

 

[OlNate]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world. Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

So... just a little concern here. What happens when all labor can be replaced with AI and robotics? In other words, even if you could get the cost of cutting your lawn down to a buck, what good would that be if no one can afford a lawn, let alone the buck to mow it, because there are no jobs?

I mean... there is a solution. But while i dig that you're open minded enough to consider a leftist's point of view (when they're advocating for slave / child labor), I'm not sure you're ready to go *that* far left.... hehe

But I would be interested in hearing your thoughts around how capitalism handles a complete, or near complete, replacement of labor, when its very existence relies entirely upon the spending of wages.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

One of the things that drive up labor costs is minimum wage laws. Another is OSHA regulations. Another is unemployment compensation. Another is Workers Comp laws. Another is regulations regarding licensure and qualifications to do certain jobs.

@aociswundumho is, based on his previous postings on this board, against all of these things. He believes the government has no business setting any conditions for anyone to do any work. He says things like building codes and contractor boards are simply a means to keep others from becoming contractors. He says if someone wants to be a physician, they should be allowed to simply hang out their shingle and go to work. Medical education requirements and standards are a scam created by the doctors cartel.

​

 

[noonereal]

So... just a little concern here. What happens when all labor can be replaced with AI and robotics? In other words, even if you could get the cost of cutting your lawn down to a buck, what good would that be if no one can afford a lawn, let alone the buck to mow it, because there are no jobs?

Silly fear. Time is change, people adapt.

You don't stop progress because some people are not prepared for the future.

 

[noonereal]

One of the things that drive up labor costs is minimum wage laws. Another is OSHA regulations. Another is unemployment compensation. Another is Workers Comp laws. Another is regulations regarding licensure and qualifications to do certain jobs.

All of which benefits society.

 

[Helix]

It will be interesting to observe the reactions of armchair anti-labor right wing philosophers when AI comes for their jobs.

 

[Grand Mal]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world. Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

Cheap is good, huh? That what you're saying, in a nutshell?

 

[Michael Cole]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world.

Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

This is problematic. As a blank statement, this logically results in slavery and/or exploitation. Starving people will push a lawn mower for much less than someone with a full belly.

Under normal circumstances, lowering the cost of labor may provide a net benefit, not always.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

Your argument hasn't really addressed automation that I can see. The cotton gin was automation. So was the telegraph. So was the Automat.

What is your argument? That automation provides a net benefit? I'd of course agree with that. We've witnessed it for 200 years. What is the connection to labor market costs?

 

[Mach]

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

Reducing costs is not always good, neither in the short or long term. That's more libertarian fantasy-speak.
The fallacy seems to be introduced by equating people with "a cost".
They are people, not a cost.
What's next, mistaking an entire corporation for a person?

 

[j brown's body]

Automation may have decreased the cost of making a car, but they’re more expensive than ever to buy.

 

[Questerr]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world. Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

Yes, because you don’t give a shit about human quality of life and it’s inconceivable for the wealth generated by automation to go to the people who formerly worked in those jobs rather than the pockets of rich assholes.

 

[element94]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world. Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

So you're pro shithole countries?
How about this, imagine, oh say, 100 million people literally hunting billionaires daily, taking all of their shit and roasting them over an open fire. Kind of hard to stop 100,000,000 people with a will like that. Might be best not to flirt with that scenario.

 

[Questerr]

@aociswundumho

We are eventually going to get to the point where machines are designing the machines that service the machines that build the machines that provide goods and services. That is inevitable. As technology improves, it will eventually get to the point where most work is done by machines.

At that point, the vast majority of humanity will be not only unemployed, but permanently unemployable. What do you think should happen to those people? Should they just be expected to starve to death quietly? Or should the benefits of the automation be socialized to provide for the needs of all?

 

[jnug]

I really don't know where to go with this thread. So I will try this:
anything done to extremes can be problematic.

One poster already offered his view of automating to an extreme.

However there is over dependence on cheap labor. Two examples:
- slave labor here in the US through to the end of chattel slavery (I won't go into other methods of enslaving people in this post)
- excessive access to cheap labor in China. In China they have been known to overwork cheap labor in very fine detail work that must use excellent vision and high magnification to such an existent that the worker ultimately loses his or her excellent vision. They are then thrown on a trash heap with somebody that still has excellent vision brought in as a replacement.

Now there is an opinion that what happens to that pile of outcasts means nothing. IMO it does not mean nothing and it will ultimately create a societal backlash that likely will have negative consequences.

 

[OlNate]

Silly fear. Time is change, people adapt.

You don't stop progress because some people are not prepared for the future.

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. Please lemme know so I know how to respond.

 

[noonereal]

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. Please lemme know so I know how to respond.

Why on earth would it be sarcasm?

I am not sure how you could consider it as such ? ??

 

[OlNate]

Why on earth would it be sarcasm?

I am not sure how you could consider it as such ? ??

Because it's so dumb I had to assume sarcasm. In fact, I'm still not convinced you're not being sarcastic.

Taking what you're saying at face value, just in case this is your version of "serious", progress without considering consequences is behind the vast majority of the problems we face today. Continuing to advocate for that approach is the height of ignorance and dumbassery, effectively rendering anyone doing it intellectually unfit for the discussion.

That all said, I remain unconvinced that you're not being sarcastic, I give you more credit than that... hehe

 

[noonereal]

We should still use a horse and buggy not cars as it made blacksmiths and stable men adjust.

Brilliant!

 

[OlNate]

We should still use a horse and buggy not cars as it made blacksmiths and stable men adjust.

Brilliant!

I use AI every day in my business. Your binary of horse and buggy or run as fast as you can straight into disaster is immature at best, utterly inaccurate and dangerous.

One can adopt new technology while being mindful of the potential downfalls, and seek to address them before they outweigh the benefits. This should be the obligation of everyone - at least, everyone intelligent and responsible enough to think further out than the next five minutes.

 

[noonereal]

I use AI every day in my business. Your binary of horse and buggy or run as fast as you can straight into disaster is immature at best, utterly inaccurate and dangerous.

One can adopt new technology while being mindful of the potential downfalls, and seek to address them before they outweigh the benefits. This should be the obligation of everyone - at least, everyone intelligent and responsible enough to think further out than the next five minutes.

I never crested a binary.

Be very careful. Your second paragraph sounded very much like a disguised personal insult.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

It is inconsistent to support the production and use of labor-saving machines while being against cheap human labor.

Human labor is a cost, and reducing that cost is always good. Doesn't matter if it's a machine or another person willing to work cheaper.

If there's a guy in the neighborhood mowing lawns for $100 each, and some other guy comes along who is willing to do it for $75, then the entire neighborhood benefits, and that aggregate benefit is worth far more than the loss to the $100 per yard lawn guy. If a third guy comes along with some kind of robot lawn mower that can do it for $50 per lawn, that's even better. If a Mexican immigrant comes along and undercuts the robot mower, that's even better still.

The same argument applies to a city, state, country, or the entire world. Lowering the cost of human labor is always a net benefit.

There's another aspect of this that the "pro worker" crowd overlooks, which is that the person who sells their labor cheap also benefits.

Leftist Paul Krugman wrote an excellent piece on that:

In Praise of Cheap Labor

For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and...

slate.com

I have to go to work, I'll be back later to answer responses.

Except in a few years there are going to be NINE BILLION folks on this rock. A paradigm shift is going to occur because the economic math doesn’t work anymore.

There simply will not be; with globalization, automation and increased population 40 hours a week Joe Job work to feed, cloth and house the work force of a NINE BILLION mouths world. There won’t remotely be enough automation tech jobs either. The number of work hours available at the rate of modern pay times the number of people with need will not equal the amount of money required to take care of all of them. You can either give everyone who needs a part time job or some segment of everyone who needs full time employment and the rest do without.

There is going to have to be a new order of economics to deal with that.

That simply is the math of it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This analysis ignores the value of the people providing the labor, which isn’t just measured in money or even quantitatively at all.

 

[Questerr]

I use AI every day in my business. Your binary of horse and buggy or run as fast as you can straight into disaster is immature at best, utterly inaccurate and dangerous.

One can adopt new technology while being mindful of the potential downfalls, and seek to address them before they outweigh the benefits. This should be the obligation of everyone - at least, everyone intelligent and responsible enough to think further out than the next five minutes.

Or smart enough to think further than the next quarterly earnings statement, which disqualifies most corporations.