« First « Previous Comments 23 - 62 of 73 Next » Last » Search these comments
You proposed that if we restrict immigration, we'll get more automation.
I'm saying if that is going to happen, let's still restrict immigration, since automation is better than immigration.
If done wrong, we may all be nuked by Skynet.
I didn't say that at all actually. I don't think immigration is the main cause for wage decline--it's been automation all along.
The real question is: if we get AI and robots, and productivity goes through the roof, will our elites still be keen to take in all the refugees of the earth.
But this is about to change.
Automation so far was only a factor in manufacturing, now a small share of the US economy.
But this is about to change.
This is a fake rational that our elite spread widely at every opportunity, because Americans find it hard to be mad at modernity.
- But this is disproved by the productivity numbers. If automation was rampant, productivity would accelerate, instead it is low and slowing. How do you explain that?
- You also apparently believe that adding a huge supply on a market (the labor market) doesn't depress prices. Tens of millions of workers desperate to do any job for a low wage is of course going to lower prices for the jobs they are doing, and other jobs as people change occupation.
Or end up in a police state dictatorship run by a NSA director.
No, productivity has been low for a long time , and wages have been flat also during that time.
he only sector in which automation makes a big difference today is manufacturing, which is less than 10% of the workers.
How about we stop in 1950s America and not go all the way to Venezuela?
There should be some space between glorified bum and debt driven consumerism.
Again--I can rattle off a lot of service folks who would beg to differ after their jobs were automated away.
Can’t happen anymore, not since technology has made everyone so powerful in relationship to our environment and social structure. What’s MORE likely is that an overreaching government would be ignored by the populace and starved of taxes and legitimacy until it largely disappeared.
People tend to romanticize the past, so present examples are best. But you could go back to 1930's America. I think we had the last of the Communist planks implemented by good old FDR.
What service jobs were automated?
Hogwash. How many secretary's and operators were replaced by automated call attendants? How many managers have secretaries now after the computer age?
How many bank tellers have been replaced by ATMs?
How many checkers have been replace by auto-checkout terminals at big box stores?
I could go on and on. Manufacturing, service, you name it. Automation is everywhere.
Unions lead to higher productivity:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20070620/
Interesting you reference an article written by a guy who's never held a real job in his life, and has certainly benefited from having large useless organizations in place to give him said jobs.
I was in a union once. Selling souvenirs at Qualcomm stadium when I was in college. I asked if I could not be in the union when I signed up for the job, and was told that wasn't an option. It wasn't a bad job, but never did figure out what that $4 a paycheck was doing for me that I couldn't have done for myself.
http://lawofwork.ca/?p=6881
So, the current examples would be Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland.
And the author of this study appears to have spent some years as legal counsel for... a union! Clearly an unbiased source if there ever was one. Interestingly, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, the countries I mentioned, both have unions. So happy and unhappy countries can have unions?
you are implying that this guy, having not been in a union, is drawing bad conclusions?
What the union does is use the bargaining power of many to negotiate better pay and benefits than any individual would be able to do on their own.
should be easy for you to point out his inaccuracies then.
Venezuela and Zimbabwe, the countries I mentioned, both have unions.
I'm saying a guy who has never had to work a day in his life at anything most of us would recognize as real work is only going to bring highly abstracted "theoretical" knowledge to the table. It always sounds good, but is rarely proven out in real life.
Yes, socialism. It brings even the most capable man down to the level of the lowliest, most timid employee. Claiming to benefit mankind, but helping no actual individual man.
Unions lead to higher productivity:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20070620/
We all know how the unions destroyed Hostess-Twinkies with their silly unproductive rules.
You also apparently believe that adding a huge supply on a market (the labor market) doesn't depress prices.
Despite mounting pressures – including a nationwide crackdown on vehicle-dwelling – America’s modern-day nomads show great resilience. But how much of that toughness should our culture require for basic membership? And when do all the impossible choices start to tear people – a society – apart? The growing ranks of folks living on the road suggest the answer might be: much sooner than we think.
Strategist says
We all know how the unions destroyed Hostess-Twinkies with their silly unproductive rules.
Actually you think that because of the propaganda that you read. But the truth is much more interesting. I encourage you to dig a little deeper. (truth is the company was purposely killed by Mitt Romney hedge fund types)
Unions probably played a very small part (if any) in Hostess-Twinkies demise.
Robots have a great deal of advantages over immigrants.
Unions were the only reason the company went broke. If you know something others don't, please tell us.
I was in a union once. Selling souvenirs at Qualcomm stadium when I was in college. I asked if I could not be in the union when I signed up for the job, and was told that wasn't an option. It wasn't a bad job, but never did figure out what that $4 a paycheck was doing for me that I couldn't have done for myself.
Good, please point out where his lack of experience has allowed him to draw poor conclusions then.
Unions lessen the inherent advantage businesses have over employees during compensation negotiations.
Seems obvious, he equated unions with production.
You can thank them for the 40 hour work week, holidays, overtime pay
Did it pay more than minimum wage?
It’s not a great representation of a union job because the work is entirely unskilled and you were extremely replaceable.
The ideal work week according to SCRUM is 30 hours, so no thanks for overworking me. And America has significantly less holiday and vacation time than many other countries, so again, thanks for nothing.
Maybe lazy people need unions to do everything for them, but then again, the people who benefit most from socialism are typically the laziest.
« First « Previous Comments 23 - 62 of 73 Next » Last » Search these comments
Not a race to the bottom?
#economy