"Ed Huntress" wrote:

You and Wes seem to be implying that you wouldn't automate if there weren't
factors that raised labor costs. That's a mistake. What drives automation is
competition, not labor. That's been true since manufacturing began, and the
commentary I read in _American Machinist_ from the 1920s, '30s, '40s, etc.
said exactly the same things you're saying now. And it was just as wrong.

Actually I agree on the competition theme to your reply. The point Tom was making is if
the costs of employing people increases significantly due to policies likely to come from
Washington, that will be that 'extra' budget that makes marginal automation schemes look
reasonable.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller