On 2013-09-01, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 11:58:56 -0500, Ignoramus27947
wrote:

On 2013-09-01, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 11:38:44 -0500, Ignoramus27947
wrote:

On 2013-09-01, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

The trouble with more automation that I see is that at some point
there has to a be human involved. Can trucks be unloaded and
materials be unpacked and prepared by robots? Sure, but the laws of
diminishing returns don't favor that high of degree of automation.
My thought is to just take the art out of an operation and increase
quality and consistency.

My own approach to this, is to push things as far as possible.

I cannot see, why trucks cannot be unloaded by robots.

And I am also sure that robots do not need pension and health
insurance.

i

Everyone else can stand back and watch! g

You're right that you can't stop that kind of progress. And then what?


I do not know what then. I find that sort of progress to be
inevitable, but dusturbing.

Same here.

I am convinced that, unlike in the past,
computers can replace people permanently. As the ability of computers
progresses, they can replace more and more people.

Under old economic theories, this was not a problem. The work week
would just keep getting shorter.

Today people call that "socialism," even though it has nothing to do
with government ownership.

It's a vexing issue that I'm sure some of the denizens here have all
figured out. d8-)


Why do a business want to employ a "no longer economically useful
worker" for reduced hours?

It is a vexing issue that I have not figured out, except for a
determination to be ireplaceable by computers, for me and for my
kids.

i