"Wes" wrote in message
...
"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

But that's the fallacy, Wes. If you look at it that way, you're always
behind in investment. If *today's* pricing and *today's* competition are
driving your decisions, you've already lost the game.

What you're describing is the kind of static thinking that killed the US
machine tool industry, among others. You are going to have to automate or
make other productivity-enhancing investments, no matter what happens to
your labor costs. If you're waiting for labor costs to make the decision for
you, you're too late. Your competition, overseas or domestic, has already
made that decision. That is, the competition that you will be fighting for
price and quality tommorow, rather than today.

If you use labor costs as your trigger for automating, you're using them as
a scapegoat for your own lack of foresight. Competition will force you to
act. And if you act by putting pressure on labor, you're just racing to the
bottom, because you're squeezing your own market, directly or indirectly.
Recognizing that is the "enlightened" part of the phrase, "enlightened
self-interest."

--
Ed Huntress