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.
If you don't outsource jobs, but instead employ technology that eliminates them, then you've still lost jobs for Americans. That's just a bunch of different words to say the same thing.
The day we have to pay benefits to robots, and allow them to bring their robotic families over to the US, is the day I agree with your inane comment.
I wish someone would look at economic history in the US to understand that automation/technology has zip to do with job loss. For example, when we "upgraded" from horses to cars, did we lose jobs?
What happened is that the new technology created more jobs than did the old; it's always been that way- until the past few decades.
In 1998, economists were lamenting that the new technology was not creating jobs, but they were unable to see past the fog of their theology (open marketeers). The difference is that in the previous technology jumps we had an economy protected by tariffs. We abandoned that system which had ben in place since (circa) 1794 in 1973.
So, yes, the new technology has created the expected number of new jobs, but because American are for the first time in their history in direct competition with workers making 16 cents (or less) per hour, and we have a business class far slimier than even the Robber Barons of the 1890s, those jobs are in China and India.
While I can understand why outsourcing has negative effects in the short term, the long run investments those same companies make in R&D creates more jobs and more higher paying jobs. There is a certain point where industry reaches its 'peak'. It becomes too expensive to manufacture goods in developed nations as costs of living rises. As a nation matures, heavy industry tends to go overseas. It is an uphill battle to keep heavy industry in developed nations, we have seen this effect with the auto, steel, and paper industries.
Although I have not confirmed it for myself, I once heard that for every job replaced by robots, two jobs are created elsewhere.
Far more jobs are being lost to outsourcing than to automation... so the entire discussion is somewhat moot... Most jobs that can be automated already are... Automation is taking very few of the 3.6 million jobs lost in the past year..
And outsourcing is by no means a 'short term' problem... People who are in the work force realize this - it seems to me you may be retired...
Anyone who works at a computer or who does 'brain work' or who is in manufacturing (doesn't leave much - does it) is highly vulnerable to outsourcing - and they know that - and I don't think they will open up their pocketbooks anytime soon.
dont have to go 11th century in our fear of modernization however, 21 million illegal immigrants and wholsale outresourcing to outside the country is having an effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
Lower prices?
Lower prices, create huge unemployment, spin the economy into unprecedented uncertainty, make some richer then ever and drove millions (including educated middle class folks) to poverty. But on the other hand I now have a DVD player in every room, including my bathroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
I asked my Libertarian friend the following question:
If the productive efficiency in America were to be raised to such an extreme that there was constantly an oversupply of things Americans wanted to buy, wouldn't this be harmful to the Country?
His response: No - Everyone would be a millionaire.
Comments?
BS. If everyone would be millionaire, then you would pay $1B rent and $10B tuition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
I wish someone would look at economic history in the US to understand that automation/technology has zip to do with job loss. For example, when we "upgraded" from horses to cars, did we lose jobs?
No, because everything stayed in the US. The new cars needed factories to build them and drivers to drive them.
Quote:
What happened is that the new technology created more jobs than did the old; it's always been that way- until the past few decades.
Where are "more" jobs created? Show me the money (jobs)...
The whole idea of globalization is based on assumptions that never materialized. They say that capital is now global. The US invests in China, who invests in India, which on its turn imports from US. A closed circle. It wrongly assumed (that after some time), the trade between US and China and India, will be balanced. We know how it worked in reality.
Quote:
1998, economists were lamenting that the new technology was not creating jobs, but they were unable to see past the fog of their theology (open marketeers). The difference is that in the previous technology jumps we had an economy protected by tariffs. We abandoned that system which had ben in place since (circa) 1794 in 1973.
Not tariffs only. There was the cold war and the US never considered outsourcing to communist and third world countries, nor letting its precious assets get away for a few bucks.
Quote:
So, yes, the new technology has created the expected number of new jobs, but because American are for the first time in their history in direct competition with workers making 16 cents (or less) per hour, and we have a business class far slimier than even the Robber Barons of the 1890s, those jobs are in China and India.
Back to the OP - yes, robots and automation can replace workers and the US would get its ultimate goal - become a country of money rollers who only move money from one pocket to another and everyone gets rich.... Utopia.
A Boeing L1011 can take off, cruise and land itself without pilot intervention. Already pilots and flight crew are nearly obsolete. It will be decades, however, before any airline has the balls to put passengers into a completely automated aircraft and launch them into the wild blue yonder. It will happen though. Will it save money for the airlines? Not likely. The cost of an airliner with sophisticated enough electronics and A.I. to completely remove the need for any human supervision will cost more than the combined pool of pilots on payroll. I wonder how much money retailers actually save with automated check out kiosks. They probably save on peripheral costs associated with human staff but the companies supplying those machines know very well what the wage of a supermarket clerk is and their lease costs for those machines exceed those costs handily. What the salespeople have to push is that you can finally be rid of snotty and/or demanding human employees that get pregnant or get into catfights in the employee lounge (employee lounge... ...?), call in sick, etc. I am old enough to remember elevator operators paid to man automated elevators. I am all for increased efficiency through automation. Robotic manipulators for neurosurgeions do not yet eliminate neurosurgeons but they will. If humanity survives long enough. As long as humanity develops the neccessary social and economic systems to de-stigmatize joblessness then I have no issue. At present we have a society that very much stigmatizes joblessness and there are no economic systems to protect outsourced let alone obsoleted workers. How can companies ethically develop and sell innovations that they know will further add to that load of excessed human beings?
How is it that we always want to move backwards? It is impossible to regress in technological progress. The world today is flat, we live in a globalized society. No longer is the United States self-sufficient. We are moving more into a world where Americans might have to move overseas to find a good job, and that is (in my opinion) not a bad thing. And I agree that people who say automation in factories only being about cost savings are incorrect. Machines are much more precise, produce less defects and are safer. I work in IT for a manufacturing company supporting those very machines, and the consumer is the first person to touch our products. There are many more jobs because of technological progress (mine is one of them). If your job goes away, don't complain to the government to 'keep jobs in America', but work harder! The only job security is being the best at what you do. If you are good enough to be indispensable to a company your job will never be outsourced.
If your job goes away, don't complain to the government to 'keep jobs in America', but work harder! The only job security is being the best at what you do. If you are good enough to be indispensable to a company your job will never be outsourced.
???!!!I have to go to the gym and will have to tear you a new one later. If someone doesn't beat me to it. What absolute @#$%#!
???!!!I have to go to the gym and will have to tear you a new one later. If someone doesn't beat me to it. What absolute @#$%#!
I am waiting to hear this. I am not sure what is so offensive about trying to be good at your job. Competence is job security. If you are good at your job, even if you lose it you know you can find a new one very quickly.
I work for a manufacturer that has competed very heavily with American companies that have outsourced all their production and I can say for the last year or so we are finally winning! We do have a small warehouse in China and the price to do business has gone up something like 70% in 2 years. I can't remember the exact numbers. Nearly all our competators are at or near bankrupcy.
Transportaion from China has gone through the roof as has labor costs. The Chinease are finally starting to demand Environmental controls and soon basic workers rights. This will increase the cost. We have worked to automate a lot of jobs while everyone else was busy outsourcing. This eliminated about 50 jobs but our company is now very healthy and we employ about 300 people and our hiring more. Before we started to aggresively pursue automation we had about 350 we now do more though with less people.
We have also had so many problems with the quality of products our company tried to import from China that most people think that we lost as much money as we saved. More and more manufacturing jobs will be automated and this will preserve a lot of manufacturing in the USA. Outsourcing is just a temperary solution in the long term it doesn't make any sense. I read an article that basically said that the vast majority of companies that outsourced are rethinking it.
My theory is that increased automation will negate lower wages in the 3rd world. Increased fuel and raw materials will also raise the cost of outsourcing. The whole Green movement will also eventually help American manufacturers in ways that most Americans don't yet realize.
I was very good at several industrial jobs but all of them were completely insecure and quite independent of how good or how much I worked. I have never joined the spend now and pay later club or expected a job to last.
We need to realize the world is far from flat but steeply inclined toward the cheapest labor and dirtiest environment. We desperately need countervailing tariffs and a Reciprocal Trade policy if we want to keep and increase our overall prosperity.
HNSG is delusional if he thinks hard work and skill will keep him employed if a new owner decides to use the company in a fraudulent investment scheme or just send the entire place to Bangladesh.
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.
