At one time this was partially true but that's no longer the case. Originally automation relied on mechanical technology that could only perform limited tasks and the technology was very complex to perform those tasks. Since the introduction of artificial intelligence into automation the complexity of the mechanical technology has been significantly reduced and the tasks that can be performed is now virtually unlimited. Virtually every job you can think of can now be replaced by automation and it's only a matter of time before the cost/benefit analysis will result in automation replacing the job. We've already seen about 40% of all manufacturing jobs per capita being replaced by automation so our employment has moved into the "service sector" but we're also seeing a significant decline per capita in service sector jobs as well today. Think about this. A bank teller provides a service and roughly 80% of the bank teller jobs per capita have been replaced by ATM's, auto payments, credit cards and digital transfers. I haven't written more than 100 checks in the last 10 years that would require a bank teller to process. During the last 12 months I haven't written even one check to anyone. When I need cash I simply use an ATM or get it as cash back on a purchase. Virtually all of my bank transactions are digital today and don't require a person to process the transaction. Why go to the bank where I'd need a bank teller's service? Yes, the bank tellers found other jobs, perhaps flipping burgers, but even burger-flipping is becoming automated today. What part of "automation is going to make human labor fundamentally obsolete within 100 years" isn't sinking in? There won't be a "lower paying job" because that job is going to be automated.
And the answer to my question, "If you needed a plumber or an electrician to do some work at your home what would you consider to be a fair hourly wage you would willingly pay?"
I would try to get an estimate from Labor. Any bonus or tip would depend entirely, on any, generous petty cash fund established for that purpose. I believe the best plan may be the one that can be implemented at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that simply compensates for structural and other forms of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. The objective is to use some socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual, with a social form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that conforms to the existing doctrine of employment at will; thus, solving for the laissez-fair, capital, laziness of capitalism with socialism's implied social work ethic; such as capitalism's simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Would Labor be worse off, being able to quit and apply for unemployment compensation or simply choose to not work; and be compensated at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage?
Then perhaps we should eliminate a government determined minimum wage and leave wages to be agreed upon solely by employers and employees. But if assured the work quality would be identical, would you be more likely to use the services of a business who paid $7.25/hr or another who paid $15/hr to their employees?
Why is that? We have corporate welfare for those deemed, "too big to fail". Why only deny and disparage the least wealthy? Maybe; Ford decided it was worth $15/ to retain qualified labor.
Not at all, from your past posts you seem to support higher wages being paid workers, and I'm just asking if you are willing to do your part in making that possible/probable by purchasing from those who pay higher wages if you could obtain the same quality from another due to their paying lower wages. I've only presented you with a scenario drawing a conclusion only from your answer. And automation usually increases both quality and quantity without increasing the price and often lowers the price, unless government mandates higher wages.
We have social safety nets for a reason; to bail out capitalism's, laissez-fair laziness in regard to social costs.
While it doesn't have to, it often does relative to what human labour would cost to produce each item allowing a lower sales price of a larger quantity to produce the same or more profits than could be done by human labour alone.
I answered. As an example what do you think a computer motherboard would cost if it was created by human hands alone, from start to finish? Less than when done by automation? Do I 'believe' in markets? As opposed to what?
That should be obvious, as automation should increase productivity if a small price reduction would entice more to consume the product it could result in much higher profits. Check out the price of large screen TVs from 10 years ago to what they cost today.
That is true but there are informed opinions and uninformed opinions. Back to the chase. Eventually, probably within the next 100 years, virtually all human labor will be replaced by "automation" (Artificial intelligence and technology) and as that happens our entire economy that's based upon human labor will collapse. It is a problem that we know is coming and the sooner we address the problem the less painful it will be to resolve. Like a cancer it's curable when it's Stage One cancer but if it progresses until it reaches Stage Four cancer then it's likely to be fatal.
While it doesn't have to, it often does relative to what human labour would cost to produce each item allowing a lower sales price of a larger quantity to produce the same or more profits than could be done by human labour alone. To increase sales of a larger quantity of production by making it affordable to a larger consumer base while increasing profits. 1. Automation need not lower the price of anything if demand at the current price equals or exceeds the supply automation produces. If automation only results in producing an adequate supply to meet the demand, pricing may not change at all or could even increase if the demand increases or remains adequate to consume the supply. 2. Are you then trying to avoid acceptance of my answers relative to automation and change it into one based on market competition? That might be a good question for another thread. But market competition is a reason much automation comes into existence. Really now.
