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.
When you lose $10 but only gain back $1 and your debt load has increased from $10 to $20, you're still not only out $9, but you still must find $19 to pay off your debt.
Essentially, the few jobs created for these robots aren't hardly enough to make up for the jobs we've lost due to the robots given the growing size of our labor pool. That leads to more and more people being unemployed and without an income, and lower wages for those who are working.
Your right. It's better to have to have $0.
Please tell me you weren't the brightest one in the class...
And did you secure the bank loan to start up that smithy yet?
Well it's good to know that you're perfectly content with living a feudalist society that consists of only a few people controlling all of the wealth while everyone else works as their slaves.
When you lose $10 but only gain back $1 and your debt load has increased from $10 to $20, you're still not only out $9, but you still must find $19 to pay off your debt.
Essentially, the few jobs created for these robots aren't hardly enough to make up for the jobs we've lost due to the robots despite the growing size of our labor pool. That leads to more and more people being unemployed and without an income, and lower wages for those who are working.
We should still welcome back the jobs returning, even when far fewer than say, 1973, and we also should be reining in our spending which makes us less dependent on wage levels in the future that make us uncompetitive globally.
Ford's latest Michigan plant offers an example of this, were it not for being mostly a Tier II facility, the vehicles would have been made in Mexico. In other words, by forgoing the outlandish UAW contract wage levels of the past, thousands in Mi got new jobs, at neither slave nor Cadillac wages. Reasonable wages given the skills required.
We should still welcome back the jobs returning, even when far fewer than say, 1973, and we also should be reining in our spending which makes us less dependent on wage levels in the future that make us uncompetitive globally.
Ford's latest Michigan plant offers an example of this, were it not for being mostly a Tier II facility, the vehicles would have been made in Mexico. In other words, by forgoing the outlandish UAW contract wage levels of the past, thousands in Mi got new jobs, at neither slave nor Cadillac wages. Reasonable wages given the skills required.
While the payscales are lower, the alternatives were bleak. Better that than the fate of the American Axle workers, who saw their jobs packed up and shipped to Mexico. And quite frankly, I can stand by some of what they have done. Instead of providing incentive to keep the same skill level (turning the bolt 10 hour a day) workers now have a reason to look towards something more viable and in demand. The big three still offer opportunities for their workers to upgrade their skills, meaning there is life beyond the cellular work prisons. They also offer free education in the way of college and/or vocational training, both of which can prove very valuable to one's career at these companies.
Plenty of my friends at the big 3 plants are still making great money, although that required further technical training. If you would like to earn $28/hr, you must be capable of bringing $28/hr worth of productive capability to the table. The opportunities are there for good incomes for those who make the effort. Problem is, many folks are bitter about the reality that they must make some contribution towards their viability and worth instead of being handed the middle class American dream.
While the payscales are lower, the alternatives were bleak.
True, and in this case, I applaud the UAW for taking the sane approach, and approving of a facility at this wage rate, as that bold move added thousands of US jobs.
It seems like the countries where robotic technology is created also all have wealth redistribution policies in place, which mitigates the "damage" that the technology does on the lower income people whose jobs are replaced.
So, in the US, if you make a robot that brings you a billion dollars, you pay a lot of taxes on that billion, some of which goes to helping the people you put out of work to find new work. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc etc. All of this helps poorer people re-train themselves with more relevant skills.
But as others have mentioned (including those in the 60 minutes link), the Chinese or Indian workers overseas are probably the hardest hit. And I don't think they are eligible for US social services.
Plus, even if you become wealthy in the US, you tend to stay in the US and spend money there. Someone has to build that mansion of yours, serve and cook your food, etc. So the domestic marketplace itself acts as a kind of wealth redistribution.
In my opinion, this brings up the ethical validity of redistributing wealth within a single nation through forced government policy, while at the same time, trading on a global economy. If you're a poor person in America and you use the power of the ballot box to give yourself a leg up, on the backs of richer Americans, while poor Chinese people are left behind... have you done something ethically questionable?
In recent years, sex selective abortion in China has been big news in America, particularly amongst Christians. From what I've read, the practice is especially focused in rural China, the poorest parts of China where income is probably less than $10 a day. Girls are often identified in the womb and then terminated since they are seen as net losses for the family, since girls cost about the same to raise to adulthood, then when they become adults, they leave the family, leaving the boys to take care of the parents as they age. It should also be noted that globally, abortion is disproportionately something that poor people perform. In the US, 70% of abortions are performed by people either in poverty or just 100% above the poverty level. 60% of all black New York City fetuses are aborted every year, about 30% nationwide. In China, I think about 25% of all fetuses are aborted per year, boys and girls included. In Russia the fetus abortion rate is 50%.
If these rural Chinese people and others suffer the most from robot replacements, should a poor American person care about that or any of this when they vote to maintain wealth redistribution policies in the US? Should the engineer who develops the robot in the first place care?
I wouldn't object to higher property taxes on robots versus machinery in general. An easy way to do it is it should always be based on the original value of the robot times the BLS COL factor each year. So while a machine originally valued at 200k will be taxed at 0k in a short period of time, the 200k robot would be going up 2-3% annually, and be forever based on higher than original value amounts.
That would deflate the ROI on robots somewhat, and account for their negative affects on gross payroll somewhat.
Now when we get a new dotcom type of job engine, we should start allowing robots to be treated like machinery for tax purposes, as overall job growth should absorb those desiring employment.
I wouldn't object to higher property taxes on robots versus machinery in general. An easy way to do it is it should always be based on the original value of the robot times the BLS COL factor each year. So while a machine originally valued at 200k will be taxed at 0k in a short period of time, the 200k robot would be going up 2-3% annually, and be forever based on higher than original value amounts.
That would deflate the ROI on robots somewhat, and account for their negative affects on gross payroll somewhat.
Now when we get a new dotcom type of job engine, we should start allowing robots to be treated like machinery for tax purposes, as overall job growth should absorb those desiring employment.
Than how will you define a "robot"? Will you define it as a machine with arms that is capable of picking up and manipulating work, or will you define it as any computer controlled machine? Robots only account for a fraction of the automated work done today. None the less, the robots and machines are all programmed using basic and universal language. For the most part, they are all accomplishing one familiar goal... Doing more with less.
And really, we've been doing that since the 1800's on. That's what sparked the industrial revolution. Nobody had a problem then.
I wouldn't object to higher property taxes on robots versus machinery in general. An easy way to do it is it should always be based on the original value of the robot times the BLS COL factor each year. So while a machine originally valued at 200k will be taxed at 0k in a short period of time, the 200k robot would be going up 2-3% annually, and be forever based on higher than original value amounts.
That would deflate the ROI on robots somewhat, and account for their negative affects on gross payroll somewhat.
Now when we get a new dotcom type of job engine, we should start allowing robots to be treated like machinery for tax purposes, as overall job growth should absorb those desiring employment.
Bob can we cut to the chase? How do I sell or own a robot that is worth value. In jest, partly, but mostly serious. I was reading who controls the bots controls the future.
Bob can we cut to the chase? How do I sell or own a robot that is worth value. In jest, partly, but mostly serious. I was reading who controls the bots controls the future.
Lots of small companies own robotics. Pretty much every company is investing in automated technology out of necessity. I would hardly suggest they control their destiny, let alone the future. Many of them race out to buy this stuff, going top heavy in debt in a race to stay competitive. Inevitably, when the profit margins slide, or perhaps work drops off, they cannot make payments on their outstanding debts. In the end, someone else swoops in and buys the technology for pennies on the dollar. Painfully common scenario.
Even worse, many of these robotics firms have short lifespans because that game is just about as competitive. An example of this race to the bottom we are seeing. The real winners are the multinational corporations who simply dictate what it to be manufactured. Few investment costs, as there are lines of business owners with access to millions of dollars of funds willing to buy whatever is necessary to manufacture the products at a competitive price point.
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.
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.
