What To Do About The Long-Term Implications of Automation

News flash; No matter if people work at your 'big boys' places or your mom/pop places, ALL workers are entitled to whatever government assistance might be applicable.

Very little of what you write above is accurate yet you attack me for questioning you...

 

I mostly agree. And one way I see of brining about interest, awareness, enthusiasm, and sufficient popularity is to work for increased use of worker-owned, worker operated, democratically-run co-ops. Only they would and do opt for adaptation to automation by reducing workers' hours on the job while maintaining approximately the same wage level. And this can be advanced by running and electing more progressives and democratic socialists to congress and ultimately the presidency. "Our Revolution" says that democratic socialists won 21 out of 59 contests. And the interest in Worker co-ops (WSDEs) is catching on very nicely.

 

I think the root and crux of the problem is that we do not see an economic model as being able to first and foremost provide the resources needed for a population to survive and even to prosper. Instead we see an economic model as a tool for enriching the people at the top to the max, and that then drives how the model is structured. And yet it is the economic model which is the sole provided for the people in any nation. And you can use capitalism to do this, and I would argue that while far from perfect the model FDR put into place did the the best that we have ever seen in the industrial age. And instead of correcting the weak and flawed parts of it, we instead, destroyed it and replaced it with this neoliberal model that is only concerned with the maxing out of profits for the top, with no consideration for what it does to the population who are not at the top. For the top has always been and will always be small. To think otherwise is rainbow and unicorn thinking. I have not problems with rich people at the top. I only have a problem when they because of their power structure an economic model to exclusively benefit themselves, and this has always hurt everyone else not in the upper middle class and upper class. And this has happened in america beginning in the 80s, when the FDR model began to be dismantled. And by the 90s both parties were involved in doing it. Well, we got what the cons in the GOP wanted for a very long time, and if you think this is better than the model that came before it, you have not paid attention to what has happened to working people in this nation. The Big Picture tells a very negative story of what neoliberalism has done to this country.

Our elites today own no allegiance to america or any nation. That is not quite what the Founders had in mind when they created this nation, IMO. Our elites, are in reality people without a country, and their actions speak loudly to this fact. They will use america and her common people like they would use a dirty whore, or a lethal parasite would use its host. But isn't that common behavior for sociopaths? And humans driven by greed, who can never ever be satiated? No wonder the world's religions have spoken out against this kind of greed since ancient times. It is destructive of others, in case you are wondering. And we have even in modern times removed morality from capitalism, so that making profits is outside of morality, and you can do anything you want to in order to profit. In fact we are encouraged to do just that. But history tells us this never ends well, and it will not end well this time either. Never does, just give it enough time. Class warfare is a never ending fact, no matter how much one may diss it.

Americans traditionally have always been perfectly fine with our rich elites. We have even looked up to them, admired them, and wanted to be just like them. And this will be the attitude of the People unless and until the growth of the wealth at the top is done at the cost to everyone else. Then things change, attitudes change with most of us, except some of the right wing ideological driven people. But even they will desert the ship, some of them, when the actions of the elites create suffering for them. This is just human nature. And then all you have left with the right side are the people who are still prospering and see no problem at all. So human nature says...if I am doing fine then it is all good, and my ideology is wonderful. But what about the others? Oh, they say, tell em to get off their lazy arses and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. And they will say this when there are exponentially more unemployed than available jobs. For I have heard them say this countless times in the past, like right after the crash of 08 and the recession.

We should treat our economic model just like we treat our model for national defense. For we should defend our own economy as we defend our people with our miltary. Novel idea, huh? Well, the Founders put such a defense of our economy in place, and it took the GOPhers in the 80s joined by the dems in the 90s to destroy what the Founders gave us. And look at the results! Nuff said.

 

the rich only give socialist commie handouts to peasants by act of mercy.

act of mercy requires a huge death toll in one way or another.

FDR was president during world war 2, so commie, socialist, entitlement handouts, and world war 2, are connected somehow.

 

if i may dig deeper at the 'convincing' part.

we believe in the right of self defense from a tyrannical government, automation removes our ability to defend by placing us on universal basic income or welfare, by the same people who want to take our second amendment away.

you cannot convince us to give up our god given right that founding peasant christians sacrificed against england for, so that you or they can make money from robots.

the ability to live off the land with menial labor and the second amendment is the only rational guarantee against communism in our opinion.

 

My point was, in my own lifetime, and I am 75, I lived in a prior time when locally owned businesses, selling what walmart sells, paid living wages, and there was no need for welfare. And this was due to the business model being used at that time by these locally owned businesses. I watched that change, as corporations like walmart whose business model depends upon you and I subsidizing their wages so the corporation can max out their profits, closed down these locally owned businesses that paid living wages and there was no need for welfare. If you say this is not accurate, then sir, you are full of sh*t. And damn right I called you on it, if you are trying to say I am not accurate in what I personally have seen happen.

Having owned a small manufacturing business for over 40 years that I sold when I retired early, and a business that paid living wages, unlike some competitors that I had towards the end of my career, what I say comes from hands on experience and not from someone who never owned a business and lived in that world. So how could I pay living wages, and later competitors would not? Oh, the simplicity here is astounding. I settled for a reasonable income for myself, unlike my competitors who thought they needed multi million dollar homes and all of the expensive status symbols that tells the peons that I made it!! I was concerned instead with living a decent life and paying my employees enough to stay off of welfare and have some pride about themselves. So, don't try to tell me a thing about how this crap works. I lived it. And didn't get info from some ideologically driven economist or ideological driven american.

 

Whatever bizarre connections are in your mind you have utterly failed to explain them with any coherence whatsoever.

 

Things are not the same today as decades ago...just look at the inflation over the past four decades! I'm also in your age group and I remember working when going to school and I was paid $1.40/hour...even back then this was not a living wage.

Your anecdotal stories do not represent the general public. Almost no business is going to pay any more than is required to hire and sustain labor to meet demand. When labor costs can be 20-50% of business expenses, and most companies are competing with others, a business cannot simply throw money away by carelessly paying well above the market prices for labor. Most of the companies you complain about are publicly traded companies which means there is tremendous pressure to manage the business well and yes be profitable. Since all of these companies require vast amounts of cash to operate and grow, in order to serve more customers and maintain/increase profits, outside investors are the answer. And every person in the USA who holds stock privately, or in pension funds, or 401K type funds, etc. demand not only profits but the highest share prices and many times dividends. Over-paying for labor when not necessary to attract that labor, assuming the business is in a competitive arena, is foolishness.

BTW; for 40 years I managed business units and companies and today I continue to operate my own business...

 

We don't even know if his competitors if any in That part of Fla use H1b workers in their provate clubs. The article I read says what Trump pays is about the national average which probably is way below the average where his club is. But either way the hypocracy of A two hundred thousand dollar membership club not being willing to pay enough to attract American workers is striking.

 

The article is only attacking trump because he is trump

Lib journalists dont care about H1b workers except as they relate to trump

 

You do know those employees demanded the Walmarts of the world right? The consumer greed is what caused them to lose their own jobs and lowering wages, instead of buying localy for high quality, they wanted cheap crap from Japan, then China, then Vietnam...

 

When I was in high school in the early 1980s, I would work two jobs (I was in the work release program) I worked from 6 am to 11 am at my dad's automation plant, go to high school , then at 5pm go to work at Arbys..


Even in the 80s we could of automated and used robotics for everything if money was no object

The technology has been around for quiet sometime, money is always the issue, what's cheaper human labor or providing the initial capitol of investing and buying the tooling , robotics, the automated machines?

 

I love Oxford scholars discussing the impact automation and technology will have on jobs in the US.
America has been in perpetual evolution since its genesis and we have had no problem keeping up. Labor, blue collar jobs in the US have been decreasing for years. Nobody in the US expects 0

The US has always adapted. As horse and buggy went, cars and trains came, cassettes and VHS went, digital video and pictures came, landlines and long distance went, smartphones came. We are always moving forward.

 

So, what should the US be doing to move forward faster than the competition of the other countries of the world?

China and the EU/UK are every bit as interested in being on top as we are.

 

Any proof regarding Walmart coaching employees to get on government assistance?

 

They may be interested, but they are far from competition. The US is unparalleled when it comes to ingenuity and invention. We have the best of absolutely everything from medicine to smartphones. I think the question is, can any other country compete with America? Obviously, not presently.