On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:59:09 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 10:51:53 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 9/1/2013 10:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:58:37 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 9/1/2013 9:44 AM, 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?

There is always work to be done.

Yes there is. It expands to fit the time available.

Nope. There is always meaningful work to be done. The Lump of Labor
fallacy *is* a fallacy, after all.

I'm not sure that is a universal truth. I've lived in several foreign
countries where there simply aren't jobs for everyone.
Likewize. There may be WORK for everyone, but not jobs. Work for no
pay or gain is not a job. Lots of available "work" but very few "jobs"
in Burkina Faso, Zambia, and other poor third world countries.

The problem is, in a society where everyone wants a "job" a lot of the
"work" that needs to be done never gets done.

Volunteer "work" gives a man purpose, even if it dies not provide him
any gain..

Someone who has proved they are capable of and not afraid of "work"
often gets a "job" out of it. The lazy one who sits around waiting
for a "job" but does no "work" can be easily overlooked.