Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why work hard for some illusive goal when almost anybody can be a whiskey and dope runner for the mob. There are alternate economies available.
To answer the OP's question. The excess of available capital out there makes it economically preferable to build robotic factories then hire people. An automobile factory in Malaysia is just as robotized as one in Indiana.
Why work hard for some illusive goal when almost anybody can be a whiskey and dope runner for the mob. There are alternate economies available.
To answer the OP's question. The excess of available capital out there makes it economically preferable to build robotic factories then hire people. An automobile factory in Malaysia is just as robotized as one in Indiana.
It depends on labor cost though.
No need to build expensive robots in Malaysia.
But i believe sweet spot is between $5 and $7 per hour.
Why the conversation always wanders off into the realm of personal proclamations baffles me to no end. The labor participation rate expressed as the number of people working as opposed to the potential number of ready and acceptable candidates is a useful metric when considering where human labor might be utilized at lower costs. Other than that obvious potential it's numbers simply suggests a rise in mechanized labor efficiency.
Why are people bent on discussing this as the same conversation that followed the farm to factory shift, or the disappearance of the Buffalo hunter in the 1800's? Technology has changed the game forever, machine labor utilization was relatively low at the time of the change from agriculture to the industrialized sector, that meant that the human labor utilization rate was still high in industrial manufacturing, mining, logging, etc, not so today. Technology will replace the world's need for human labor, we know that to be the truth, but for whatever reason we don't know how to deal with that truth.
With the huge increase in mechanized labor functions around the globe should we really be expecting any economic system to be innately capable of dealing with the obvious fallout with regard to an equal rise in unemployment? The permanent marginalization of human labor will continue, machine labor has long demonstrated it's superior production capacity. And the rise of the machine means something has to give in terms of what new roles us humans will play.
Machines are a very real potential human liberator, the problem lies not with the machine, but in our attempts to determine who will address the natural consequences of labor efficiency. The world's governments, either singularly or as a group will be forced to implement policy that honestly addresses this sea change of human social dynamics. Denial of the facts surrounding this change will end up as a very real obstacle to any acceptable resolution, technology will continue to advance, the question is--will we as a people advance along with it or will we be stuck in the past holding on to dying paradigms?
Why the conversation always wanders off into the realm of personal proclamations baffles me to no end.
You are doing the same thing. Labor force participation isn't declining. Check the 1st page. Unless I missed it the OP still hasn't provided any evidence of a decline, and there is rather evidence to the contrary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.