On 9/1/2013 4:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 10:55:03 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 9/1/2013 10:43 AM, 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.

It isn't a problem. It never has been.


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.

Wrong. People would do things that formerly weren't done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

The "lump of labor" issue deals well with increases in labor supply
and with a historical consequence of technological changes affecting
productivity. But it's contradicted by the increasing GINI coefficient
and the stagnation of middle-class wages and salaries. Something is
changing.

There is a hollowing-out of the middle class going on. The arguments
against the "lump of labor fallacy" say that shouldn't happen.

As Tom says, the goal is to take the "art" out of production. And as
Iggy says, there are more middle-class jobs that can be handled by
computers.

We've seen some of the consequences already. There simply are no
compensating numbers of new jobs in the middle range of skill and
income, even though there are plenty of jobs at the bottom end, and a
few more at the top.



Ever since I was very young, wheel brushes were wound by hand. In the
early 70's, one legendary winder operator made $350 per week in bonus
over and above his salary. That was good money back then. Today, a
good winder will make 1/5 as many parts even though I've raised the
bonus and lowered the bonus threshold. People just won't do more than
they have to in order not to get fired. THAT'S why I automated the
production and eliminated the "Art" factor. I accept the fact that it's
a different time now, never to go back to the old ways. AND, the new
ways are better...but not for jobs. I wonder...more and more people and
less and less manufacturing jobs. Agriculture is the same, mining and
oil is the same. Wealth creation does not rely on large numbers of
people anymore and the skill set if way different. Could that be why
wealth is being more and more concentrated?