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.
Automated warehouses are just the beginning. We're about to see an explosion of robotic applications. The Raspberry Pi and Arduino projects are low cost examples of robotics and automation tools that are within the reach of everybody today.
Software is the key to all of this, so I would advise young people to learn it. I think math, science, history, literature, and foreign languages are also vital and everyone should study them. (Of course, I'm a bit of a throwback.)
Raising the minimum wage is counter productive and will merely hasten the automation of more jobs. The minimum wage is not $7.25/hour. It's $0.50/hour because that's what it costs to get the work done in the lowest wage region, and they will also build the robots over there.
Instead of focusing on forcing a "living wage" which will merely cause more unemployment, we should be making the country more business-friendly, i.e. lower taxes and regulatory burdens on start-ups and small businesses, and make it attractive to hire people in this country.
I think we should also be encouraging domestic energy production, which will bring down the cost of domestic manufacturing and create thousands more jobs. There's lots we can do to stave off the 30% unemployment that robotics is threatening to cause.
Automated warehouses are just the beginning. We're about to see an explosion of robotic applications. The Raspberry Pi and Arduino projects are low cost examples of robotics and automation tools that are within the reach of everybody today.
Software is the key to all of this, so I would advise young people to learn it. I think math, science, history, literature, and foreign languages are also vital and everyone should study them. (Of course, I'm a bit of a throwback.)
Raising the minimum wage is counter productive and will merely hasten the automation of more jobs. The minimum wage is not $7.25/hour. It's $0.50/hour because that's what it costs to get the work done in the lowest wage region, and they will also build the robots over there.
Instead of focusing on forcing a "living wage" which will merely cause more unemployment, we should be making the country more business-friendly, i.e. lower taxes and regulatory burdens on start-ups and small businesses, and make it attractive to hire people in this country.
I think we should also be encouraging domestic energy production, which will bring down the cost of domestic manufacturing and create thousands more jobs. There's lots we can do to stave off the 30% unemployment that robotics is threatening to cause.
How isn't it attractive to hire people in America besides the laws related to discrimination in hiring process? A lot of posters on C-D have already disagreed with many of your regulator burdens because of necessity (ACA not withstanding.) Personally, besides the 20% minority laws I don't disagree with employment law.
I agree we should encourage domestic energy production whether it localized oil and gas drilling or more green energy. Arizona is booming with solar energy but it is one of a few areas that can really do it.
Tremendous employer paid payroll taxes, benefits, etc.
Typically an employee paid 60k gets a 45k net paycheck/year, and the employer cost is at minimum 90k. A 2 to 1 ratio at best case scenario.
I said hiring laws, benefits isn't law (besides Obamacare forcing healthcare (something many bigger employers actually did offer even if it was junk policies.))
Exactly, it will be a negative externality that would be likely to cripple the economy. I cannot find the exact post but somebody posted the story of the frog and the scorpion where the scorpion stings the frog (and killing it) while the frog tries to bring the scorpion ashore. In this case the scorpion is companies stinging the frog which is society because it is in their nature (to get more profits.) My thoughts are that the rise in machines will cause an adverse impact that will lead to people not having income, let alone disposable income.
That isn't the best metaphor to use, because it views society (whose members work in business) as a single collective (a scorpion) instead of a bunch of individuals (an ant colony).
But with that said, you got the cast of characters completely backwards.
The frog is business, which keeps society (the scorpion) afloat by swimming (creating value, not redistributing it - oops, did I just shoot a hole in your "static pie" theory? ). The increasing regulations, tax burden, and labor costs, (relative to market prices of the goods sold /services rendered) are the venom with which society stings the frog.
The law that 20% of your workforce must be a some sort of minority to prevent discrimination in the hiring process.
Those laws themselves mandate discrimination.
And laws don't prevent jack (discrimination will either happen or it won't, regardless of the law), but they can cause the presentation of the appearance of non-discrimination.
How isn't it attractive to hire people in America besides the laws related to discrimination in hiring process?
Cost.
If hiring and retaining American workers is less costly than installing and maintaining robots, then hiring human workers will be the more attractive of the two options.
If the cost of of installing and maintaining robots is less than the cost of hiring and retaining human workers - and this is the current trajectory, with unskilled workers demanding higher pay than their labor is worth - then robots will become more attractive than human labor.
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.