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.
So where in the Constitution does it say that? Who decides what employment levels are appropriately commensurate with their profits? What is an appropriate level? What if the business doesn't need the employees? What will they do? Nothing? So businesses will be mandated to be welfare programs?
So just redistribute wealth as some bureaucrat sees fit? Wow, you do like Communism. Good luck with that.
Some states do it some don’t, the federal constitution is a list of donts by the feds, states have the rights to issue or not issue a business license and the people of that state have the right to initiate ballot measures, if you don’t like it you can move to another state.
Is "crony capitalist" a phrase of yours or a common one used in this forum? I'm not familiar with that term.
Any way, yes, I do know the costs for automating, having worked in manufacturing for about 40 years where I helped develop several systems ranging from standalone testing machines to fully automated manufacturing lines, all for major companies.
As an example of how the financing and engineering works out, on a project we designed and priced out the cost of a completely manual operation with people performing each task with some fixtures and preparing the components by hand followed by assembly, testing, and packaging. At the other end of the spectrum we created a plan for a lights out completely automated system. Workers brought reels of material to a platform, and loaded components onto a machine. Completed product came out the other end with no human labor involved. This was all designed and modeled on computers. Then the business was evaluated for profitability:
Both plans were evaluated according to the financial investment required for each and variations were calculated moving from full manual to full auto. A manual line would have cost, say $100,000 plus the building and training of operators. The fully automated line would have cost about $5,000,000 with very little training but a much bigger building. Our production rates were also considered as part of each plan.
So how did the customer decide what to do? The looked at the investment required to build the operation at several practical stages and compared that cost to what they could earn by simply investing in their own stock, or alternatively US Government bonds. That created a target level of how much automation to apply to the project depending on estimated production volumes.
I'm sure many of the posters on this forum have experience in similar planning efforts and completed projects.
So, to answer your question, "Do any of the crony capitalists on this site actually realize what it costs to automate", yes, many do.
I am all for automation if they simply do it, no fear mongering or political ad campaigns threatening automation if taxes are not cut or min wages lowered etc etc. if a company simply automates that’s a very different thing from ad campaigns and scare tactics so that they can get cheap labor AND not have to pony up the 5 mil. THAT is the issue. It is intellectually dishonest and should be criminalized.
It does not quite work like that, the rich can hold out WAY longer than you can stay solvent and the rich can stay cozy for quite a long time while you are trying to survive on the streets in the elements with no food.
The rich can starve out a significant number of people before they have to start making life style changes or modifying business plans.
Its not like everyone will suddenly be all unemployed at the same time, people will be in various stages of desperation. There will never be enough people at one time in a dire enough situation to be willing to fight and actually win.
The rich know this and our economy is highly engineered such that there will never be a situation where 100 million people are all starving around a burn barrel at the same time. they will trickle to the burn barrel and then death from exposure (starving is unlikely) a little at a time, but not too slowly.
However, there will be enough people who are mad enough to vote against business at one time and that is what business is worried about. I don't have to be at the proverbial burn barrel yet to know that's where I am heading in 2-3 years if the elite have their way and I will vote against it. But if im still relatively comfortable for the time being I am unlikely to take up arms.
You are correct. The impoverishment will not affect everyone at the same speed. I did not elaborate on that in my last post but I took that into consideration. But the impoverishment will affect everyone, no matter how rich they are. Businesses will fold and the rich owners will not be able to make money and will run out of it. The super rich will hold out the longest but they also will become poor even if they have cash left. With businesses closing there won't be anything available to buy. What will become important is people's ability to survive based on brute strength and health. Without a logical solution to full automation by the government or directly by the people, the world will become a scary Mad Max scenario where money is worthless and physical strength, weapons, and access to food becomes very important.
But someone has to write the software that controls those machines and mechanical and electrical engineers are needed to design the components. So you lose 50 subway employees and gain 50 engineers somewhere else. IMO the result of the world becoming automated is that people will need to be smarter and smarter as time goes on.
The problem is that the software creation process will also be automated. All work, be it physical or mental will be automated. That is the challenge. People won't be needed to work. You may want to work, but there won't be anything available since computers, robots, and other machines will be able to do it better, more efficiently, faster, and cheaper than people.
The only issue is said engineer develops said machine and software, once that intellectual property is out the company can outsource the constuction to china, lay off the engineer and proceed to line their own pockets. THAT is exactly what is happening right now.
The engineers are only needed to the extent nessecary that a company can extract their intellectual property and then lay them off. Because most people can only produce a very limited amount of truely profound intellecutal property in their life time they need legal protections otherwise people will start leaving their ideas on the bench because they cant afford to loose it and not retire off of it.
I know I would leave all my stuff on the bench unless I could sell the entire package for like 20 million, dont like the price it stays on the bench.
In all reality we will eventually have a major war or the people will vote in communism/socialism.
Some states do it some don’t, the federal constitution is a list of donts by the feds, states have the rights to issue or not issue a business license and the people of that state have the right to initiate ballot measures, if you don’t like it you can move to another state.
No the Constitution has the Bill of Rights. If the intent was to control business to generate jobs, you'd think they'd mention that, but I will concede that point.
Yeah that'll never happen. Amazon is great but people are social creatures and want to go out and browse in person sometimes. Only a total recluse would stay at home on not ever leave the house to make a purchase.
I only make purchases online, but that doesn't make me a recluse. I go out to go on hikes, I go to clubs, I attend festivals, etc.
But I no longer shop in retail stores. I had enough of them trying to get me to apply for a credit card or sign up for their rewards program or give them my phone number and email address (so they could bombard me with MORE offers).
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,593 posts, read 81,279,384 times
Reputation: 57831
Quote:
Originally Posted by BusinessManIT
The problem is that the software creation process will also be automated. All work, be it physical or mental will be automated. That is the challenge. People won't be needed to work. You may want to work, but there won't be anything available since computers, robots, and other machines will be able to do it better, more efficiently, faster, and cheaper than people.
Just like the industrial revolution started in the late 1700s in Britain, people have to adapt to changing technology and be prepared to find work that is needed and valued. Besides the people needed to design, program and repair the automation of the future, many other jobs will never be replaced by machines. Many of them will be skilled labor such as plumbers and auto mechanics but also "thinking and negotiating" jobs like managers, teachers, counselors, lawyers, dieticians, doctors. There will not be enough of these to go around, however, and people often don't think about this when they select a major in college.
So what did they choose and how long ago was this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashj007
Is "crony capitalist" a phrase of yours or a common one used in this forum? I'm not familiar with that term.
Any way, yes, I do know the costs for automating, having worked in manufacturing for about 40 years where I helped develop several systems ranging from standalone testing machines to fully automated manufacturing lines, all for major companies.
As an example of how the financing and engineering works out, on a project we designed and priced out the cost of a completely manual operation with people performing each task with some fixtures and preparing the components by hand followed by assembly, testing, and packaging. At the other end of the spectrum we created a plan for a lights out completely automated system. Workers brought reels of material to a platform, and loaded components onto a machine. Completed product came out the other end with no human labor involved. This was all designed and modeled on computers. Then the business was evaluated for profitability:
Both plans were evaluated according to the financial investment required for each and variations were calculated moving from full manual to full auto. A manual line would have cost, say $100,000 plus the building and training of operators. The fully automated line would have cost about $5,000,000 with very little training but a much bigger building. Our production rates were also considered as part of each plan.
So how did the customer decide what to do? The looked at the investment required to build the operation at several practical stages and compared that cost to what they could earn by simply investing in their own stock, or alternatively US Government bonds. That created a target level of how much automation to apply to the project depending on estimated production volumes.
I'm sure many of the posters on this forum have experience in similar planning efforts and completed projects.
So, to answer your question, "Do any of the crony capitalists on this site actually realize what it costs to automate", yes, many do.
Yep, there is a BIG difference between a touch screen and a fully automated burger joint with no humans there at all (or one security guy). The cronys like to point to the touch screens (I saw them too at khols) that's not automation that's a touch screen.
It's coming, but it'll still take a while. Like with lots of tech. For example some people are still surprised that cell phones came out in the 80s, or how CD players came out even before that.
Unless they can make the robots with humanoid form, then it's just cheaper to wait until you build a new store to put in "robot arms" that can accommodate that from the ground up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
What's a crony capitalist and what does it have to do with automation? Is this some new Fox news buzzword?
Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk taken for them, but rather, as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class. ... It is also used to describe governmental decisions favoring "cronies" of governmental officials.
Hmm, I thought that included when larger companies get ahead by buying out their competition and stifling them, rather than outcompeting them, but I guess that's something else
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.
Mad Max Scenario
