- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 27,204
- Reaction score
- 13,299
- Location
- CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Human labor.It's not coming where labor remains the better option.
If the labor isn't worth it, then don't pay.How is refusing to pay more for labor than the labor is worth to you an example of rampant greed?
There's a difference between automation and machinery with regards to productivity.
The accountant is more productive with the invention of the computer, but they are not automated.
One accountant does the job of many. He brings more value to the company than before.
You are defining value as "what the person is paid." The computer reduced the need for accountants, so the market price of their labor was reduced in theory.
But an individual accountant is still producing more actual work.
The biggest winner is actually the CEO.Yes, way more. The big winner is the only person we should ever care about in the economy: the consumer.
The only plausible solution to this that I can think of - haven't really seen any others, beyond hopeful optimism that 'new jobs' will magically be created in proportion to those replaced - is further reducing the standard 'full time' working week. After the past century of automation, offshoring and women entering the workforce, we'd probably be way past Depression levels of unemployment if we were all still working 80 hours a week. Seems logical for that trend to continue; if less human labour is needed, have more people working less rather than just less people working!There's also our long-term problem. If machines are continuously driving down the value of labor... how long can society survive such a trend? Machines get better, faster, and smarter over time. We do not. I'd be hesitant to point at any occupation and smugly declare it can never be automated.
Of course, you can demonstrate this by comparing unemployment rates with minimum wage increases for, say, the past 75 years, right? We have almost a century of empirical data to draw upon.A higher min wage is a drag on entry level jobs, and there's really no getting around that fact.
My point still stands, even if I’m a hermit.Labor replacement has been going on for quite awhile now. Are you a hermit? Go into any WALMART and see all the self check-out stations. Most of the time two maybe three cashier checkout lanes are open out of several dozen...
This started long before Covid, before wage hikes, before MAGA was a thing...
And global companies actively avoid creating jobs there because of the employment costs.Europe has higher minimum wages than the US and yet companies still manage to make a profit.
It's a modern-day miracle!
Sorry but voluntary charity isn't communist.
I doubt it will be a success because people dont want to deal with a computer that is prone to mistakes. They want personalized service from a human and most will pay a little extra for it.
Jesus was a communist.
Matthew 19:21
This sounds a lot like Karl Marx.
Machine repairmenMachines have been driving down the value of labor for hundreds of years, and the number of jobs has only gone up.
As if you know what you're even talking about! Modern automobiles have diagnostic computers that tell the mechanic everything wrong with it, Today's mechanics basically install and remove parts, turn nuts and bolts, there is less skill involved in mechanics today, than at any point in automotive history.Given the complexity of modern cars, I'm not surprised. But what do you think citing this fact proves?
I have thought about it, and I think I’d rather put stock in the basic economic principle that rising prices suppress demand than what you say here. Perhaps you can tell me why I should think otherwise?Well that is ironic considering you want to blame increased wages for automation in some food service. You must not get out much. I posted in another thread my observations in OKC and Lawton, OK. You'd make bank betting each and every fast food, or restaurant has a 'NOW HIRING' sign and our min wage hasn't gone up a cent...
I said this in the other thread noting our Governor's stopping federal unemployment payments early. He claimed it was paying people more to sit at home than going back to work. But funny thing, the business supporters of this action are still struggling to find people willing to work for 7.25 an hour. So perhaps it isn't high wages driving the need for machines but rather the lack of people willing to work for a pittance...
You might want to think on that a bit...
Perhaps you’d like to ask yourself why automation has been a force for so long a time?Thata is one of the dumbest OP I javae read on this message board. Replacing people with machines has been going on for a hundred years and even in very low paying jobs. Take Walmart, where they now have do it yourself checkouts that cut out cashiers. Do not think that it is because they pay low wages, which they do, they just want to pay fewer workers so they can make more profits. the minimum wage has had nothing to do with it since it has not been change in that for a long time. And in states where there has been an increase in minimum wage, the economy has grown faster than the rest of the country.
Bingo. If one accountant costs me $100k and the computer, software, and IT support costs me $50k, then I am better off with the one accountant with a computer than having two accountants do the job manually. If, however, I find accountants who are willing to work for $40k each, then I shouldn’t get the computer.One accountant does the job of many.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the job and the skills required for the repetitive tasks.Human labor.
But for repetitive jobs, automation is coming. No matter what.
That was a rhetorical question.If the labor isn't worth it, then don't pay.
Same as you've said about jobs. If the job doesn't pay what you feel it's worth, don't accept.
Remember?
In what universe does a computer with accounting software cost 50,000 dollars? Automation is always going to be cheaper in the long run, no matter how little you're paying your employees.Bingo. If one accountant costs me $100k and the computer, software, and IT support costs me $50k, then I am better off with the one accountant with a computer than having two accountants do the job manually. If, however, I find accountants who are willing to work for $40k each, then I shouldn’t get the computer.
This dynamic plays out at all wage levels where automation is feasible. It’s all a question of cost and benefit.
If he or she finds a way to deliver more value to the business’ owners, why shouldn’t s/he “win?”The biggest winner is actually the CEO.
Actually, this is all about greed and making more money. The few (rich) always want more and the ones that pay are the laborers.... when the cost of labor begins to outpace the economic value that of labor, labor substitution can become economically viable:
Dunkin' Opens First 'Digital-Only' Restaurant In Boston
A new kind of Dunkin' has just opened in Boston.boston.cbslocal.com
That is not anywhere near what I said in my post. Reread it.Are you suggesting that order takers at Dunkin' donughts are high wage/high benefit employees, and that is why they have been replaced by an Ipad?
Its your argument that is stupid. The point was not whether or not there should be minimum wage laws...but rather that the idiot leftist push to turn minimum wage jobs into careers and a 'livable wage' are absolutely having the predicted outcome...that those minimum wage jobs are being eliminated. Add into the mix all the other agenda items the left is eager to push on employers and it can be no shock that employers will respond. As a result...a chain that has been around for 71 years providing part time employment mostly for high school kids and people woring a second job to pay off a few bills is now in the process of eliminating those jobs...because a lot of people on the left are stupid enough to believe that working a counter at Dunkin Donuts is career worthy.We should eliminate a minimum wage so businesses can pay the pennies an hour to be competitive with automation....
Did you even think before you made this really stupid argument?
Whether I am “rich” or not is irrelevant. What would be relevant, for example, is this question: would you be willing to pay $50 for a glass of beer? If not, why not?Actually, this is all about greed and making more money. The few (rich) always want more and the ones that pay are the laborers.
By the way Nat, are you rich? Because putting up an OP such as this in which you are putting down wage increases suggests you are among those that want to keep wages low.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?