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.
Since the 70's technology substitution/industrial robotics eliminated more jobs than offshoring.
It has contributed also, I do not disagree but the end result is the same.
Quote:
For example, bank tellers used to be one of the fastest growing occupations in the US. There were 530,000 bank tellers in 1980. It used to take 45-60 minutes to deposit a paycheck and get some cash back on Pay Day. Banks employed armies of tellers, auditors, keypunchers and so on to handle retail banking.
I've been getting a pay check since the 70's and I can't recall it ever taking more than 10 minutes. Yes, automatic deposit means less jobs. My biggest point is less jobs. But this can also play into the bigger argument Bernie has made. The banks were richly rewarded for their part in crashing the economy and are making record profits. This should be better shared.
Quote:
Direct Deposit, electronic check clearing, ATMs, online and mobile banking disrupted retail banking.
The function of a bank teller is nearly obsolete.
15% of US manufacturing jobs were eliminated between 2000-2010 due to technology substitution/ industrial robotics. It's quite possible that a similar percentage of jobs will have been eliminated by the end of this decade.
Could be and we will have to explain why it is that taxes are going to have to be raised to provide people a basic income but there are even fewer jobs available that pay a wage you can live on.
Obviously you have your pre-defined retorts ready to go without even considering other perspectives, opinions, or facts. You didn't even read the first 5 words of the story:
You aren't disqualified for smoking pot? There isn't a rash of heroin addicts seeking decent paying jobs. They are living under the bridge asking for handouts.
You couldn't be speaking in greater nonsense speak if you tried. Maybe its better if commies, who live at home, refrain from talking out of school about business.
Moreover you are trying to offer a solution that no one here as inquired about a solution to (or anywhere if Amazon's popularity is any indication). Thus there is no "demand" for your solution (assuming for a second that it wasn't absolute nonsense, which it is).
Really? Show me their legal ability to head the company and refute his decisions.
And further more many amazon workers aren't given a choice, they have to give up control over their own labor and output, or starve.
Managing a company does not equate to operating one, in fact the value of a manager is only relevant if workers have a say in management. Furthermore the authority in which this structure is used is meant to promote profit based production, which isn't necessary in a free society.
Finally what I'm saying isn't commie nonsense, if profit is the motive for production, the companies look for ways to create demand for their products (marketing, product placement, etc.) rather than create only what the people need (which would limit consumerism and therefore limit growth).
You aren't disqualified for smoking pot? There isn't a rash of heroin addicts seeking decent paying jobs. They are living under the bridge asking for handouts.
You don't get to try and back into the news story that you wanted it to be before you proved that you didn't read it. It was an example, deal with it.
#2 and #5 wealthiest people in the US are both college drop-outs, thus have only HS degrees.
What makes both different is that they were true innovators, attracted venture capital, formed their own businesses, attracted talent and took it public.
Shareholders elect the Board of Directors and usually appoint corporate officers. Their objective is about increasing shareholder value. Many public companies award employees with warrants to buy shares.
Most people don’t work for a publicly- traded company.
Employees with a slave mentality tend to thrive on a “them ( owners/ shareholders) vs us ( slaves)” thing as opposed to competition vs our business.
No they weren't. Bill Gates started Microsoft by buying MS-DOS from another companies and leased the product to IBM.
Then, he stole the idea of windows from Apple, who in turn stole it from IBM.
I don't know if IBM got the idea from their own funded research or grants from the government. Either way. You are Wrong.
Their money did not come from their innovations, it came from the manipulation of the market, legal and illegal (fraud, bribe, etc.) to make sure his product is bought by everyone, governments, schools, business, etc. The rest from the stock market where money magically is created and disappears like the scheme it is.
It's called rent seeking, and that's where the great majority of wealth is made nowadays. The same way they destroy workers' rights, they use the government for their benefits. Or like pknopp is saying; Socialism for big business. Capitalism for the workers.
Who knows, who cares. You didn't read, you inserted your own opinion and tried to make a 180 on the point I made and backed up with actual facts. Not here for that game, but thanks.
Plenty of jobs out there, pretty obvious that our education system is failing at preparing people for said jobs.
Who knows, who cares. You didn't read, you inserted your own opinion and tried to make a 180 on the point I made and backed up with actual facts. Not here for that game, but thanks.
Plenty of jobs out there, pretty obvious that our education system is failing at preparing people for said jobs.
Read Logo's comment, it explains everything you have a problem with.
And further more many amazon workers aren't given a choice, they have to give up control over their own labor and output, or starve.
Sure they have a choice. They could start their own collective, as you imply. Or are you implying that all businesses should be started by capitalists and then taken over by communists? Funny, I've never heard that version of communism before.
They won't start anything, and did not start anything, because they cannot. Because they are stupid, lazy and merely hateful. Without amazon there would be no collective to take its place. Thus, the communists would actually not have a choice in that instance. They would starve.
If they / you think that your economic model is viable, there is nothing stopping you from starting your own competition.
Quote:
Managing a company does not equate to operating one,
That's the literal meaning of "operating" in the business world.
Quote:
in fact the value of a manager is only relevant if workers have a say in management.
Nonsensical double talk that is absolutely devoid of content. Its not supported by logic, nor description of what the nonsense means. Its mere word salad.
It also perfectly encapsulates your unmoored method of selective responses and meaningless tropes in order to defend your indefensible position here.
Quote:
Furthermore the authority in which this structure is used is meant to promote profit based production, which isn't necessary in a free society.
Its ironic that you quote a "free society" because no communist society has ever been free. Its all been the opposite of that, we've seen this before, and we'll do anything that it takes to stop your goals.
Profit based production can, by definition occur in a free society because that society is, by definition, free.
Similarly, there is nothing stopping you from opening your competing collective in a free society. If it works better for society, then it will outcompete amazon.
What you are proposing however, in your farcical so called "free society", you need to take away the freedom of others, by force, to operate businesses how they wish.
Take your well-dated commie propaganda somewhere else.
Quote:
Finally what I'm saying isn't commie nonsense,
All communism is nonsense, as well as demonstrably and inherently genocidal.
Quote:
if profit is the motive for production, the companies look for ways to create demand for their products (marketing, product placement, etc.)
And everyone has free agency to ignore or pay attention to marketing. What is your point?
Quote:
rather than create only what the people need (which would limit consumerism and therefore limit growth).
Right, and we saw this exact model in the Soviet Union. It was an absolute nightmare, we don't want it, and we reject those who push for it.
Moreover, why do you think that your family was allowed to come here? They very growth that you rail against. Without that growth, you'd be living in the Central Asian desert that this very moment. That's a fact.
Sure they have a choice. They could start their own collective, as you imply. Or are you implying that all businesses should be started by capitalists and then taken over by communists? Funny, I've never heard that version of communism before.
They won't start anything, and did not start anything, because they cannot. Because they are stupid, lazy and merely hateful. Without amazon there would be no collective to take its place. Thus, the communists would actually not have a choice in that instance. They would starve.
If they / you think that your economic model is viable, there is nothing stopping you from starting your own competition.
That's the literal meaning of "operating" in the business world.
Nonsensical double talk that is absolutely devoid of content. Its not supported by logic, nor description of what the nonsense means. Its mere word salad.
It ironic that you quote a "free society" because no communist society has ever been free. Its all been the opposite of that, we've seen this before, and we'll do anything that it takes to stop your goals.
Profit based production can, by definition occur in a free society because that society is, by definition, free.
Similarly, there is nothing stopping you from opening your competing collective in a free society. If it works better for society, then it will outcompete amazon.
What you are proposing however, in your farcical so called :free society", you need to take away the freedom of others, by force, to operate businesses how they wish.
Take your well-dated commie propaganda somewhere else.
All communism is nonsense, as well as demonstrably and inherently genocidal.
And everyone has free agency to ignore or pay attention to marketing. What is your point?
Right, and we saw this exact model in the Soviet Union. It was an absolute nightmare, we don't want it, and we reject those who push for it.
Moreover, why do you think that your family was allowed to come here? They very growth that you rail against. Without that growth, you'd be living in the Central Asian desert that this very moment. That's a fact.
All wrong, the USSR was state run capitalism, real socialism like in Catalonia in the 30s, the Zapatistas, and the free territories were a success. And when you privatize all capital, that means workers have no ability to control their own production, starting your own business is participating in the criminal enterprise.
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.
