"Truck drivers: instead of having to drive the truck themselves they now buy one truck and send it to the place they need to be..."
Much more likely that a corporation buys a fleet of the aforementioned trucks, giving them 200 cross country trucks that no longer need drivers. With further negative downstream impacts at restaurants, truck stops, motels, and so on.
Better to say that SOME people are always needed. A case in point, and related to the article, regards new textile mills and jobs returning to the US. Of course, the reason they can afford to return is because the mills are now highly automated.
One new mill currently employs 150 people. Years ago, it needed 2,000 people to produce the same amount of cloth, for a net 92% reduction in jobs.
The jobs needed to produce the looms, maintain them, etc., are a wash, as older looms had to be produced and maintained as well. (Actually, the newer looms are probably produced using robots as well.)
The same plant, back in the day, probably also had tons of middle management, secretaries, and other positions also eliminated or no longer needed, again due to technological advances.
The call centers mentioned above are also a nice bit of misdirection. Yep. Lots of people work in call centers. But technology also lets those centers be located where labor is cheapest, and technology also lets one call center support dozens upon dozens of individual companies, eliminating in-house positions from each.
And even assuming the increase in numbers across new fields (phone operator to telemarketers) directly corresponds, once you factor in population growth (1940s?), I highly suspect that any major gains are largely illusionary.
Technology is reducing the job count relative to population, and further, is driving salaries down at the same time.
That's the mission, yes. And they're true patriots, staffed and managed by human beings who would never, ever even consider abusing the systems under their control.
Where I've lived I only seen Amber Alerts maybe once or twice a year. And you're right in that most people will be able to do nothing about it.
Then again, it's amazing how often someone does manage to see that yellow Ford pickup truck.
Which tends, in my mind, to prove his point. The fact that they're relatively rare means that when they occur we're more likely to make a mental "note" regarding that yellow truck.
Ditto. Same for the other "value" adds. Advice. Take it and leave. Classes? Attend and buy elsewhere.
Sounds to me her primary answer should simply be to add value AND advertise that they will price match any other store. Shouldn't be hard to do if their prices are "almost the same."
Given the response from across the web, I bet tons of people were using Google’s back-end systems as a way to manage and synchronize their RSS news feeds, and then feeding that information into dedicated desktop clients and apps like Reeder, NetNewsWire, and Feedly.
As such, it’s not that Google Reader had no users. It’s that Google got stuck running a warehouse full of servers that delivered information and not web pages. Since they weren’t web pages, there were no eyeballs looking at them, and as such Google had no way to serve up ads and monetize the service.
Right! But forget armed guards, we need the TSA everywhere! Backscatter scanners, detectors, no shoes, and strip searches at every school, playground, cilld care center, mall, theater and restaurant.
We must completely and totally abrogate the rights of everyone, and turn every building and establishment in the entire United States into an airport security line hell.
All because about 6% of the country is bound and determined to maintain their own private little arsenals...
Or, more likely, the supply and demand for apples is pretty much in equilibrium, in which case the more likely scenario is that with a 10% increase in per-worker productivity, the owner of the orchard fires 1 worker out of every 10.
The president of Foxconn has a huge pool of labor from which to draw, and even he has stated that he's going to put a million or so robots online in the next couple of years...
"There's an implicit assumption there that there's a one-to-one replacement, and that the robots don't lead to new jobs."
It stands to reason, does it not? After all, a company is not going to buy a robot that's less efficient than the worker it replaces.
And yes, a worker might be needed to make the robot. But that's, say, ten man-days work for a set of workers to make a set of robots, and then five-ten man-YEARS of those robots replacing a given set of workers.
The end result is that there's less work for people to do, and there's definitely less work available for the unskilled workers the robots replaced.
"When the same number of workers can produce more goods there's more money, not less, to pay them."
Brilliant analysis, but missing a rather crucial point. Yes, there's more money with which to pay them, but are they actually doing so?
WalMart runs a highly efficient operation but is also notorious for paying extremely low wages. As a result, they're banking the money which could have gone to higher wages.
Apple is producing iPhones and iPads in China, under the most "efficient" conditions possible, but again, the money is not going to the workers. Instead, Apple is heading towards having $200 billion dollars in the bank, in cash.
So to restate your sentence correctly: Automation and producing goods where there is a comparative advantage to producing those goods are both increases in efficency which MAY lead to higher wages.
The fine for dumping trash near where I live is $1,000. That's a thousand dollars for throwing a trash bag out of you car. Is that egregious? Am I punishing the person I caught overly severely?
Or is the fine deliberately structured to make dumping trash not worth the risk? In all likelihood, you're not going to get caught. But is littering worth the possibility of paying $1,000?
If you go into a store and shoplift a CD and get caught, you can go to jail. Severe? Yes. Disproportionate? Perhaps. But it makes getting caught at shoplifting not worth the risk for most people.
Now, the "harm" caused to the store is, what, $10? So should the fine for shoplifting a CD equate to the actual harm? In which case, why wouldn't everyone try to shoplift everything? Best case, you get the CD for free, and worst case is that you pay what you would have paid in the first place.
So what's the answer? 2X? 3X? 10X 100X? At what point does the deterrence factor kick in?
You mean that $400 you took away in taxes in the first place and gave to someone at the studio, who spends part it on a hotel room that actually has costs and has to be provisioned? And then pockets the rest.
You do know what the term "profit" means, don't you?
If your sole incentive is to provide a stimulus, take the $400 and hand it directly to the hotel, cutting out the middleman. Better yet, let the taxpayers keep the $400 in the first place and THEY can spend it at local stores and restaurants.
This relates to the ban most hospitals have against recording visits and surgeries. Part of it is related to HIPA and patient privacy issues, but mostly it's about ensuring that there are no recordings of any mistakes a doctor might make being used against them in a lawsuit.
Of course, the flip side to this is a good recording could also save them from a malpractice lawsuit, but they don't see it that way.
Which tends to bring one to the viewpoint that most malpractice lawsuits are justified...
On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Much more likely that a corporation buys a fleet of the aforementioned trucks, giving them 200 cross country trucks that no longer need drivers. With further negative downstream impacts at restaurants, truck stops, motels, and so on.
On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs
Re: Re:
One new mill currently employs 150 people. Years ago, it needed 2,000 people to produce the same amount of cloth, for a net 92% reduction in jobs.
The jobs needed to produce the looms, maintain them, etc., are a wash, as older looms had to be produced and maintained as well. (Actually, the newer looms are probably produced using robots as well.)
The same plant, back in the day, probably also had tons of middle management, secretaries, and other positions also eliminated or no longer needed, again due to technological advances.
The call centers mentioned above are also a nice bit of misdirection. Yep. Lots of people work in call centers. But technology also lets those centers be located where labor is cheapest, and technology also lets one call center support dozens upon dozens of individual companies, eliminating in-house positions from each.
And even assuming the increase in numbers across new fields (phone operator to telemarketers) directly corresponds, once you factor in population growth (1940s?), I highly suspect that any major gains are largely illusionary.
Technology is reducing the job count relative to population, and further, is driving salaries down at the same time.
On the post: Putt-Putt Fails To Comprehend User-Generated Content, Sends C&D To Mojang Over Mini Golf Games Recreated With Minecraft
Re:
Light. Bulb.
On the post: Oh, And One More Thing: NSA Directly Accessing Information From Google, Facebook, Skype, Apple And More
Re: Re:
All for the greater good, of course.
On the post: Politicians, Car Dealers Trying To Make It Illegal To Buy A Tesla In North Carolina
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG, "disintermediated"!!! Sounds BAD!
Since it's that later, the dealer is in fact an intermediary between Ford, the manufacturer and you, the buyer.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re:
Then again, it's amazing how often someone does manage to see that yellow Ford pickup truck.
Which tends, in my mind, to prove his point. The fact that they're relatively rare means that when they occur we're more likely to make a mental "note" regarding that yellow truck.
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re: Re: WTF
And both promotional ideas make more sense than Mike's one-size-fits-all value mantra.
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds to me her primary answer should simply be to add value AND advertise that they will price match any other store. Shouldn't be hard to do if their prices are "almost the same."
On the post: No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work
Re: Free Google Stuff
As such, it’s not that Google Reader had no users. It’s that Google got stuck running a warehouse full of servers that delivered information and not web pages. Since they weren’t web pages, there were no eyeballs looking at them, and as such Google had no way to serve up ads and monetize the service.
http://www.isights.org/2013/03/thoughts-on-google-readers-demise.html
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a spoof, it's a fabrication.
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network
Re:
And did Mike get spoofed into reporting it?
On the post: NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments
Re: Re: Re:
We must completely and totally abrogate the rights of everyone, and turn every building and establishment in the entire United States into an airport security line hell.
All because about 6% of the country is bound and determined to maintain their own private little arsenals...
On the post: Robots Or Robber Barons? What If The Answer Is Both And Neither?
Re: Re: One possible revolution
On the post: Robots Or Robber Barons? What If The Answer Is Both And Neither?
Re: Re:
On the post: Robots Or Robber Barons? What If The Answer Is Both And Neither?
Re: Re: Sales
It stands to reason, does it not? After all, a company is not going to buy a robot that's less efficient than the worker it replaces.
And yes, a worker might be needed to make the robot. But that's, say, ten man-days work for a set of workers to make a set of robots, and then five-ten man-YEARS of those robots replacing a given set of workers.
The end result is that there's less work for people to do, and there's definitely less work available for the unskilled workers the robots replaced.
On the post: Robots Or Robber Barons? What If The Answer Is Both And Neither?
Re: Re: Sales
Brilliant analysis, but missing a rather crucial point. Yes, there's more money with which to pay them, but are they actually doing so?
WalMart runs a highly efficient operation but is also notorious for paying extremely low wages. As a result, they're banking the money which could have gone to higher wages.
Apple is producing iPhones and iPads in China, under the most "efficient" conditions possible, but again, the money is not going to the workers. Instead, Apple is heading towards having $200 billion dollars in the bank, in cash.
So to restate your sentence correctly: Automation and producing goods where there is a comparative advantage to producing those goods are both increases in efficency which MAY lead to higher wages.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
Or is the fine deliberately structured to make dumping trash not worth the risk? In all likelihood, you're not going to get caught. But is littering worth the possibility of paying $1,000?
If you go into a store and shoplift a CD and get caught, you can go to jail. Severe? Yes. Disproportionate? Perhaps. But it makes getting caught at shoplifting not worth the risk for most people.
Now, the "harm" caused to the store is, what, $10? So should the fine for shoplifting a CD equate to the actual harm? In which case, why wouldn't everyone try to shoplift everything? Best case, you get the CD for free, and worst case is that you pay what you would have paid in the first place.
So what's the answer? 2X? 3X? 10X 100X? At what point does the deterrence factor kick in?
On the post: State Subsidies To Hollywood: Almost Every Program Has Been A Dismal Failure, Costing Taxpayers
Re:
You do know what the term "profit" means, don't you?
If your sole incentive is to provide a stimulus, take the $400 and hand it directly to the hotel, cutting out the middleman. Better yet, let the taxpayers keep the $400 in the first place and THEY can spend it at local stores and restaurants.
On the post: Salt Lake City Police Dept. Makes The Move To 'Always-On' Eyecams
Of course, the flip side to this is a good recording could also save them from a malpractice lawsuit, but they don't see it that way.
Which tends to bring one to the viewpoint that most malpractice lawsuits are justified...
Next >>