"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be

***** OT -- minimum metal content but important (and a hot
button issue for me) *****

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be

===========================

If you want a third world society and culture, create a
third world economy. If you want a third word economy, pay
third world wages... Unka' George

http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...ors_picks=true
snip
As we can see in 2010 only two nations, Mexico and Chile,
were worse in the gap between rich and poor than the United
States. Again, most of America is clearly in 3rd world
status at this point and the illusion of America being the
wealthiest nation on Earth is only for a select few.
snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3814333.html
snip
Income inequality increased dramatically between 1979 and
2007, when a global financial crisis rocked not just the
U.S. but the entire world. But maybe things have turned
around since then? No. Just take a look at what happened in
2011:
snip
Real [that means inflation-adjusted] median
household income declined between 2010 and 2011, a second
consecutive annual decline.
The poverty rate in 2011 was not statistically
different from 2010.
Both the percentage and number of people without
health insurance decreased between 2010 and 2011.
snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States
snip
The return to high inequality—or what Krugman and journalist
Timothy Noah have referred as the "Great Divergence"—began
in the 1970s.
The income growth of the average American family closely
matched that of economic productivity until some time in the
1970s. While it began to stagnate, productivity has
continued to climb.

Studies have found income grew more unequal almost
continuously except during the economic recessions in
1990-91, 2001 (Dot-com bubble), and 2007 sub-prime bust.
snip

On 8/29/2013 18:00, wrote:
SNIP

i
The computer still cannot drive nails and dig ditches. Your "lower
intelligence" people can make very good wages as skilled laborers and
tradesmen that will not be replaced by computers in their lifetimes,
or their children's lifetimes.

True. However, the youth of today has been conditioned into believing
they must strive for the very high paying, non physical labor type of
jobs. Unfortunately, as is the same for all the athletes who base their
future on becoming a pro, there aren't enough openings are available.
You must be VERY good at what you do, have a few connections, and have a
backup plan in case you don't succeed in achieving the elite status you
desire. Most do not.


And there are more unemployed IT and computer science geeks out there
than there are unemployed electricians, plumbers, millrights,
mechanics, etc.


True. Those trades cannot be outsourced.



--
Steve Walker
(remove brain when replying)

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:56:32 -0400, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 8/29/2013 18:00, wrote:
SNIP

i
The computer still cannot drive nails and dig ditches. Your "lower
intelligence" people can make very good wages as skilled laborers and
tradesmen that will not be replaced by computers in their lifetimes,
or their children's lifetimes.

True. However, the youth of today has been conditioned into believing
they must strive for the very high paying, non physical labor type of
jobs. Unfortunately, as is the same for all the athletes who base their
future on becoming a pro, there aren't enough openings are available.
You must be VERY good at what you do, have a few connections, and have a
backup plan in case you don't succeed in achieving the elite status you
desire. Most do not.


And there are more unemployed IT and computer science geeks out there
than there are unemployed electricians, plumbers, millrights,
mechanics, etc.


True. Those trades cannot be outsourced.

Myth. The jobs that have consistently low unemployment numbers are the
"very high paying, non physical labor type of jobs."

Here are the actual unemployment figures for the jobs mentioned, from
a Wall Street Journal analysis of Bureau of Labor Stastics figures
from 2012:

Electrician 11.2%
Plumber 10.2%
Millright 6.9%
Automotive mechanics 7.9%

The national average at that time was 7.8%. Here are the geek jobs
mentioned above:

Computer scientists and systems analysts 3.6%
Computer and IT managers 3.2%

And so it goes. Computer hardware engineers, 1.9%. Biomedical
engineers, 0.4%. Brick and stone masons, 18.8%.

The kids have been "conditioned" right.

http://tinyurl.com/apejd2o

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:38:34 PM UTC-7, Sancho Panza wrote:
On 8/29/2013 8:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 8/29/2013 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



On 8/29/2013 3:58 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

Stormin Mormon wrote:



I see no reason for the government to take money from the tax

payer, and

give it to farmers.



Do you believe famine is impossible even without government support?



Price supports are not intended to prevent famine.



Hi, Idiot George. Rant some more.



Not a refutation.



More like an exasperation.

More like the truth.

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:36:25 PM UTC-7, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/29/2013 5:10 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



On 8/29/2013 3:58 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

Stormin Mormon wrote:



I see no reason for the government to take money from the tax payer, and

give it to farmers.



Do you believe famine is impossible even without government support?



Price supports are not intended to prevent famine.



Hi, Idiot George. Rant some more.



Not a refutation.

Works for me.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:56:32 -0400, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 8/29/2013 18:00, wrote:
SNIP

i
The computer still cannot drive nails and dig ditches. Your "lower
intelligence" people can make very good wages as skilled laborers and
tradesmen that will not be replaced by computers in their lifetimes,
or their children's lifetimes.

True. However, the youth of today has been conditioned into believing
they must strive for the very high paying, non physical labor type of

It's either that or head for the welfare roles. Both are strongly
conditioned roles, depending upon the family's income level (and
somewhat along racial lines) and moral/ethical level.


jobs. Unfortunately, as is the same for all the athletes who base their
future on becoming a pro, there aren't enough openings are available.
You must be VERY good at what you do, have a few connections, and have a
backup plan in case you don't succeed in achieving the elite status you
desire. Most do not.

Yeah, it's amazing that so many people don't have a clue that they're
about to be displaced and have never even considered a backup
profession or moneymaking hobby. Oy vay!


And there are more unemployed IT and computer science geeks out there
than there are unemployed electricians, plumbers, millrights,
mechanics, etc.


True. Those trades cannot be outsourced.

+1


--
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails,
admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:19:04 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:56:32 -0400, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 8/29/2013 18:00, wrote:
SNIP

i
The computer still cannot drive nails and dig ditches. Your "lower
intelligence" people can make very good wages as skilled laborers and
tradesmen that will not be replaced by computers in their lifetimes,
or their children's lifetimes.

True. However, the youth of today has been conditioned into believing
they must strive for the very high paying, non physical labor type of

It's either that or head for the welfare roles. Both are strongly
conditioned roles, depending upon the family's income level (and
somewhat along racial lines) and moral/ethical level.


jobs. Unfortunately, as is the same for all the athletes who base their
future on becoming a pro, there aren't enough openings are available.
You must be VERY good at what you do, have a few connections, and have a
backup plan in case you don't succeed in achieving the elite status you
desire. Most do not.

Yeah, it's amazing that so many people don't have a clue that they're
about to be displaced and have never even considered a backup
profession or moneymaking hobby. Oy vay!


And there are more unemployed IT and computer science geeks out there
than there are unemployed electricians, plumbers, millrights,
mechanics, etc.


True. Those trades cannot be outsourced.

+1
Nor can computer service technicians.
Programmers and engineers can be, and are every day.

"The reason most people do not recognize an opportunity when they meet
it is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like
Hard Work

"

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:59:55 PM UTC-7, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/29/2013 10:54 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

"Scout" wrote:



"Siri Cruise" wrote in message

...

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



The history of automation is one of *increasing* productivity and thus

increasing the relative wages of the people doing the work. It is also

a history of eliminating tedious, ugly drudge work that no one really

wants to do.



Does automation increase or decrease the number of employees for the same

level

of production?



Depends on the nature and extent of the automation. Generally speaking it

decreases the number of employees needed for the same production since that

is often a factor in why automation can be cost effective.



Which would mean production would have to increase to employ the same number of

people. That means demand would have to increase. But average wages in the US

are dropping. So who will supply the demand?



You're looking at this wrongly and stupidly. You are mistaking the

prospects of those workers in an industry that sees increased automation

as typical of the prospects of workers in all industries.



You are an idiot. You have *NO* background, neither academic nor

practical, that enables you to comment authoritatively on this. Shut up.


Time to bring out your sock puppets, Pimple.

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:15:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:27:20 -0700, George Plimpton

wrote:





The very thread title is preposterous and shows that the original poster

doesn't know what he's talking about.



WallMart made $126.54 billion in profits last year.



On the backs of their lowpaying employees, held to minimal hours to

get out of paying any benefits



Add up all the ****ing profits of all corporations and it makes it

hard for idiots like you to claim the companies are hurting

Walmart is America's welfare queen. The Pimple is too stupid to understand this.

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:59:58 PM UTC-7, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/29/2013 9:15 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:27:20 -0700, George Plimpton

wrote:





The very thread title is preposterous and shows that the original poster

doesn't know what he's talking about.



WallMart made $126.54 billion in profits last year.



Good for them. That means they have a good business model.





On the backs of their lowpaying employees



No.

Not only on the backs of low paying employes but on the back of American taxpayers. American taxpayers are forced to subsidize Walmart's employees because most of them are eligible for food stamps because they are paid so poorly.

The Pimple is far too stupid to understand this and actually thinks this is a good business model and what America should be all about.

The Pimple is a world class moron as well as a drunk.

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:59:55 PM UTC-7, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/29/2013 10:54 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

"Scout" wrote:



"Siri Cruise" wrote in message

...

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



The history of automation is one of *increasing* productivity and
thus

increasing the relative wages of the people doing the work. It is
also

a history of eliminating tedious, ugly drudge work that no one
really

wants to do.



Does automation increase or decrease the number of employees for the
same

level

of production?



Depends on the nature and extent of the automation. Generally speaking
it

decreases the number of employees needed for the same production since
that

is often a factor in why automation can be cost effective.



Which would mean production would have to increase to employ the same
number of

people. That means demand would have to increase. But average wages in
the US

are dropping. So who will supply the demand?



You're looking at this wrongly and stupidly. You are mistaking the

prospects of those workers in an industry that sees increased automation

as typical of the prospects of workers in all industries.



You are an idiot. You have *NO* background, neither academic nor

practical, that enables you to comment authoritatively on this. Shut up.


*YOU* shut the **** up, you goddamned **** stain.

Who will supply the demand?

--(the rich can only eat so much cake)....


Time to bring out your sock puppets, Pimple.

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:56:32 -0400, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 8/29/2013 18:00, wrote:
SNIP

i
The computer still cannot drive nails and dig ditches. Your "lower
intelligence" people can make very good wages as skilled laborers and
tradesmen that will not be replaced by computers in their lifetimes,
or their children's lifetimes.

True. However, the youth of today has been conditioned into believing
they must strive for the very high paying, non physical labor type of
jobs. Unfortunately, as is the same for all the athletes who base their
future on becoming a pro, there aren't enough openings are available.
You must be VERY good at what you do, have a few connections, and have a
backup plan in case you don't succeed in achieving the elite status you
desire. Most do not.


And there are more unemployed IT and computer science geeks out there
than there are unemployed electricians, plumbers, millrights,
mechanics, etc.


True. Those trades cannot be outsourced.

Myth. The jobs that have consistently low unemployment numbers are the
"very high paying, non physical labor type of jobs."

Here are the actual unemployment figures for the jobs mentioned, from
a Wall Street Journal analysis of Bureau of Labor Stastics figures
from 2012:

Electrician 11.2%
Plumber 10.2%
Millright 6.9%
Automotive mechanics 7.9%

The national average at that time was 7.8%. Here are the geek jobs
mentioned above:

Computer scientists and systems analysts 3.6%
Computer and IT managers 3.2%

And so it goes. Computer hardware engineers, 1.9%. Biomedical
engineers, 0.4%. Brick and stone masons, 18.8%.

The kids have been "conditioned" right.

http://tinyurl.com/apejd2o

This data goes back to 2011. During the current recession, the
building trades got hit pretty hard. Engineering is less cyclical.

One big dip was after the Soviet Union died: The engineering trade
rags were full of doom-and-gloom, and letters from people emigrating to
Australia (which at the time had an open immigration policy for
high-skill people). The nationwide engineering unemployment rate had
quadrupled! -- it went from about 1% to about 4%.

To fill out the picture, it's useful to also know the number of people
in the various job categories. For instance, there has to be a factor
of ten more electricians than electrical engineers.

Joe Gwinn

On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:55:18 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:56:32 -0400, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 8/29/2013 18:00, wrote:
SNIP

i
The computer still cannot drive nails and dig ditches. Your "lower
intelligence" people can make very good wages as skilled laborers and
tradesmen that will not be replaced by computers in their lifetimes,
or their children's lifetimes.

True. However, the youth of today has been conditioned into believing
they must strive for the very high paying, non physical labor type of
jobs. Unfortunately, as is the same for all the athletes who base their
future on becoming a pro, there aren't enough openings are available.
You must be VERY good at what you do, have a few connections, and have a
backup plan in case you don't succeed in achieving the elite status you
desire. Most do not.


And there are more unemployed IT and computer science geeks out there
than there are unemployed electricians, plumbers, millrights,
mechanics, etc.


True. Those trades cannot be outsourced.

Myth. The jobs that have consistently low unemployment numbers are the
"very high paying, non physical labor type of jobs."

Here are the actual unemployment figures for the jobs mentioned, from
a Wall Street Journal analysis of Bureau of Labor Stastics figures
from 2012:

Electrician 11.2%
Plumber 10.2%
Millright 6.9%
Automotive mechanics 7.9%

The national average at that time was 7.8%. Here are the geek jobs
mentioned above:

Computer scientists and systems analysts 3.6%
Computer and IT managers 3.2%

And so it goes. Computer hardware engineers, 1.9%. Biomedical
engineers, 0.4%. Brick and stone masons, 18.8%.

The kids have been "conditioned" right.

http://tinyurl.com/apejd2o

This data goes back to 2011.

That's data reported in Jan. 2013, from employment figures for 2012.

During the current recession, the
building trades got hit pretty hard. Engineering is less cyclical.

During any recession, building trades are almost ALWAYS hit hard. They
are highly unstable jobs, depending a great deal on home sales and
business building investment rates -- which swing like a yo-yo.


One big dip was after the Soviet Union died: The engineering trade
rags were full of doom-and-gloom, and letters from people emigrating to
Australia (which at the time had an open immigration policy for
high-skill people). The nationwide engineering unemployment rate had
quadrupled! -- it went from about 1% to about 4%.

Engineering and related jobs are much more stable than building
trades, but anything related to manufacturing is also vulnerable to
rates of consumer sales.


To fill out the picture, it's useful to also know the number of people
in the various job categories. For instance, there has to be a factor
of ten more electricians than electrical engineers.

Joe Gwinn

That's easy to determine, Joe. The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces
vast amounts of data, which I've used in my research for close to 40
years.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/29/2013 11:31 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:59:55 PM UTC-7, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/29/2013 10:54 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

"Scout" wrote:



"Siri Cruise" wrote in message

...

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



The history of automation is one of *increasing* productivity and
thus

increasing the relative wages of the people doing the work. It is
also

a history of eliminating tedious, ugly drudge work that no one
really

wants to do.



Does automation increase or decrease the number of employees for the
same

level

of production?



Depends on the nature and extent of the automation. Generally speaking
it

decreases the number of employees needed for the same production since
that

is often a factor in why automation can be cost effective.



Which would mean production would have to increase to employ the same
number of

people. That means demand would have to increase. But average wages in
the US

are dropping. So who will supply the demand?



You're looking at this wrongly and stupidly. You are mistaking the

prospects of those workers in an industry that sees increased automation

as typical of the prospects of workers in all industries.



You are an idiot. You have *NO* background, neither academic nor

practical, that enables you to comment authoritatively on this. Shut up.


Who will supply the demand?

Say's Law answers that.

On 8/30/2013 10:08, Ed Huntress wrote:
SNIP

That's easy to determine, Joe. The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces
vast amounts of data, which I've used in my research for close to 40
years.



Is there an easy way to access this data?

--
Steve Walker
(remove brain when replying)

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 8/30/2013 10:08, Ed Huntress wrote:
SNIP

That's easy to determine, Joe. The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces
vast amounts of data, which I've used in my research for close to 40
years.



Is there an easy way to access this data?


http://www.bls.gov/data/

Historical tables are near the bottom of the page; click the "extraction
wizard" that's associated with your topic of interest.

On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:42:05 -0400, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 8/30/2013 10:08, Ed Huntress wrote:
SNIP

That's easy to determine, Joe. The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces
vast amounts of data, which I've used in my research for close to 40
years.



Is there an easy way to access this data?

I think the best way is through the "subject area" page:

http://www.bls.gov/bls/proghome.htm

They improved their site not long ago. You still have to drill down to
find something specific, but it's not difficult.

Or you can use Google to shortcut things. For example, "BLS minimum
wage," without the quotes, brings up the pages I used to answer the
question in this thread.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/30/2013 10:08, Ed Huntress wrote:
SNIP

That's easy to determine, Joe. The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces
vast amounts of data, which I've used in my research for close to 40
years.



Is there an easy way to access this data?

--
Steve Walker
(remove brain when replying)

On 8/30/2013 17:56, Steve Walker wrote:
On 8/30/2013 10:08, Ed Huntress wrote:
SNIP

That's easy to determine, Joe. The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces
vast amounts of data, which I've used in my research for close to 40
years.



Is there an easy way to access this data?



Ignore double post. Don't know what happened.

--
Steve Walker
(remove brain when replying)

On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:25:06 -0400, Ray Kroc
wrote:

Sancho Panza expressed precisely :
Demand does not increase because of confiscatory taxes. As a matter of fact,
such penalization plummets demand.

The truth is that there isn't a job that a Chinaman or a Mexican can do
better and for less than an American. Americans are overpaid and
lazy. Are any of them worth more than $15,000 a year?

That my friend is why the USA needs to grow accustomed to a low wage
future. For some reason the average American believes that they're
entitled to something just because their slut mother dropped a babye on
US soil.


If you don't like it, join the army. They'll feed you, clothe you,
bathes you and even provide free toothpaste.

============================

This is the type of attitude that results in the imposition
of draconian tax regulations such as steeply graduated
capital tax levies, intended to directly reduce amassed
wealth [and the power/hubris that results] as well as raise
revenue, when the more extreme forms of populism becomes
ascendent.

Historically, even more extreme measures are frequently
taken such as the liquidation of the oligarchic and elitist
classes, and the confiscation of their estates/assets, e.g.
French, Russian and Chinese revolutions.

On 8/30/2013 3:33 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:25:06 -0400, Ray Kroc
wrote:

Sancho Panza expressed precisely :
Demand does not increase because of confiscatory taxes. As a matter of fact,
such penalization plummets demand.

The truth is that there isn't a job that a Chinaman or a Mexican can do
better and for less than an American. Americans are overpaid and
lazy. Are any of them worth more than $15,000 a year?

That my friend is why the USA needs to grow accustomed to a low wage
future. For some reason the average American believes that they're
entitled to something just because their slut mother dropped a babye on
US soil.


If you don't like it, join the army. They'll feed you, clothe you,
bathes you and even provide free toothpaste.

============================

This is the type of attitude that results in the imposition
of draconian tax regulations such as steeply graduated
capital tax levies, intended to directly reduce amassed
wealth [and the power/hubris that results] as well as raise
revenue, when the more extreme forms of populism becomes
ascendent.

Historically, even more extreme measures are frequently
taken such as the liquidation of the oligarchic and elitist
classes, and the confiscation of their estates/assets, e.g.
French, Russian and Chinese revolutions.

No rational person expects that to happen here. We aren't even close to
that.

On Friday, August 30, 2013 3:48:13 PM UTC-7, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/30/2013 3:43 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:



"Baxter" wrote in message

...

"Wayne" wrote in

:







Of course it makes sense. Your approach is to pay someone at the

bottom of the economic ladder enough that they will not aspire any

higher.



Do you think that subsistance money is all anyone wants?



That's bull****.



You're full of it.







"The real philanthropists in our society are the people who work for less

than the can actually live on. Because they are giving their time, and their

energy, and their talents all the time so that people like you can be

dressed well, fed cheaply, and so on. They're giving to you."



Dole scroungers and low wage workers aren't "giving" anything. They are

abusive parasites.


Abusive parasites like the Pimple are often very easy to spot because they have to rely on tons of sock puppets.

On Friday, August 30, 2013 6:03:27 PM UTC-7, Wayne wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:55Sdnd1IA__Hg7zPnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...





"Wayne" wrote in message

...





"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:QMKdnR9QQZMscb3PnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...





"Wayne" wrote in message

...





"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news4udnaKOEOztXr3PnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@scnresearch. com...





"Wayne" wrote in message

...





"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:4tadnTkWWriHqb3PnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...





"Wayne" wrote in message

...



But minimum wage jobs are just passing jobs on a career path. If

someone chooses to stick with a dead end job,



# It's invariably because nothing better is available.



Then they should look harder, or increase their value to the labor

market.



# Something about the word "nothing" that you can;t quite understand ?



There is always something. They could increase their value to the labor

market by starting a business.





# Pray doing what exactly, dumpster diving for pop cans?



Well, that's a good first step.



Society doesn't owe anyone a job.



# But we're talking about people who already have jobs, you ****wit.



And you want to pay them more than they are worth, so that they won't

move up the economic ladder?



# Your statement above makes no sense, is English your second language?



Of course it makes sense. Your approach is to pay someone at the bottom

of the economic ladder enough that they will not aspire any higher.



That's bull****.



# Except the rising tide has a;ready covered the bottom two rungs...





# --what I want is for employers to stop stuffing their wallets at the

expense

# of the taxpayer, by shifting welfare and health care costs onto their

# non-customers.



Do you have a ****ing clue about the taxes employers pay?



# Newsflash:



# --I'm a business owner, with several employees...



# I collect taxes from my customers, and I forward them to the government...



# In other words, they don't cost me even a single dime.



Ah....with that paragraph you have just proved that you don't know squat

about taxes that employers pay, nor the extreme risks that they take.

Wrong.

On Friday, August 30, 2013 9:32:21 PM UTC-7, Gray Guest wrote:
Siri Cruise wrote in

:



In article ,

Gray Guest wrote:



Siri Cruise wrote in

:



In article ,

"Scout" wrote:



"Siri Cruise" wrote in message

...

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



The history of automation is one of *increasing* productivity and

thus increasing the relative wages of the people doing the work.

It is also a history of eliminating tedious, ugly drudge work

that no one really wants to do.



Does automation increase or decrease the number of employees for

the same level

of production?



Depends on the nature and extent of the automation. Generally

speaking it decreases the number of employees needed for the same

production since that is often a factor in why automation can be

cost effective.



Which would mean production would have to increase to employ the same

number of people. That means demand would have to increase. But

average wages in the US are dropping. So who will supply the demand?



Apparently the Democrats will simply pass a law mandating that demand

will go up.



How is that people who have no understanding of economics are allowed

to **** up the system.



So you want to whine about reality, but you have no solutions. Another

beautiful theory shot down by an ugly reality.



I have a solution. Whenever a Democrat makes a suggestion beat him with a

tire iron and do exactly the opposite.

I have a better solution. Better yourself silly with a tire iron in heavy traffic as part of your clown act. Remember, practice makes perfect.

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Friday, August 30, 2013 3:48:13 PM UTC-7, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/30/2013 3:43 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:



"Baxter" wrote in message

...

"Wayne" wrote in

:







Of course it makes sense. Your approach is to pay someone at the

bottom of the economic ladder enough that they will not aspire any

higher.



Do you think that subsistance money is all anyone wants?



That's bull****.



You're full of it.







"The real philanthropists in our society are the people who work for
less

than the can actually live on. Because they are giving their time, and
their

energy, and their talents all the time so that people like you can be

dressed well, fed cheaply, and so on. They're giving to you."



Dole scroungers and low wage workers aren't "giving" anything. They are

abusive parasites.


Then stay at home and pour your own ****ing coffee, you goddamn cheapskate.

Abusive parasites like the Pimple are often very easy to spot because they
have to rely on tons of sock puppets.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be

========================

If you have been following this thread, the following should
be of interest:

http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...ors_picks=true
snip
Corporate profits per unit also set a record. That's not
due to increased prices and because this is profits per
unit, it's not an increase in sales volume. Nope,
corporations are making out like bandits because they are
squeezing workers and also cashing in on very low interest
rates.
snip

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/business...destiny-w.html
snip
The recent release of a new economic mobility study that
was featured on PBS NewsHour brings much-needed evidence on
the difficulty of getting ahead in the United States.

The study is important not just because it suggests how
limited opportunities for mobility are in the United States.
What's new is the finding that the neighborhoods in which
children grow up affect their opportunities for mobility.
The study suggests that poor children who grow up in
communities like Detroit that don't provide income
supplements for poor working families are less likely to
escape poverty than those who grow up in places like San
Jose in which relatively generous supplements are provided.
It's difficult to get ahead, in other words, if one is so
unlucky as to be born into an ungenerous community.
snip

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:48:13 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:



"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be



========================



If you have been following this thread, the following should

be of interest:



http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...ors_picks=true

snip

Corporate profits per unit also set a record. That's not

due to increased prices and because this is profits per

unit, it's not an increase in sales volume. Nope,

corporations are making out like bandits because they are

squeezing workers and also cashing in on very low interest

rates.

snip



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/business...destiny-w.html

snip

The recent release of a new economic mobility study that

was featured on PBS NewsHour brings much-needed evidence on

the difficulty of getting ahead in the United States.



The study is important not just because it suggests how

limited opportunities for mobility are in the United States.

What's new is the finding that the neighborhoods in which

children grow up affect their opportunities for mobility.

The study suggests that poor children who grow up in

communities like Detroit that don't provide income

supplements for poor working families are less likely to

escape poverty than those who grow up in places like San

Jose in which relatively generous supplements are provided.

It's difficult to get ahead, in other words, if one is so

unlucky as to be born into an ungenerous community.

snip

I'm following along and I'm reading your links now.

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:48:13 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:



"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than
$13.80 an hour."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be



========================



If you have been following this thread, the following should

be of interest:



http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...ors_picks=true

snip

Corporate profits per unit also set a record. That's not

due to increased prices and because this is profits per

unit, it's not an increase in sales volume. Nope,

corporations are making out like bandits because they are

squeezing workers and also cashing in on very low interest

rates.

snip



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/business...destiny-w.html

snip

The recent release of a new economic mobility study that

was featured on PBS NewsHour brings much-needed evidence on

the difficulty of getting ahead in the United States.



The study is important not just because it suggests how

limited opportunities for mobility are in the United States.

What's new is the finding that the neighborhoods in which

children grow up affect their opportunities for mobility.

The study suggests that poor children who grow up in

communities like Detroit that don't provide income

supplements for poor working families are less likely to

escape poverty than those who grow up in places like San

Jose in which relatively generous supplements are provided.

It's difficult to get ahead, in other words, if one is so

unlucky as to be born into an ungenerous community.

snip

I'm following along and I'm reading your links now.

A related study came out just recently, lemmee see if I can find it...

Ahh here it is:

http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_new...udy-finds?lite

On 8/31/2013 8:40 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:48:13 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:



"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than
$13.80 an hour."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be



========================



If you have been following this thread, the following should

be of interest:



http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...ors_picks=true

snip

Corporate profits per unit also set a record. That's not

due to increased prices and because this is profits per

unit, it's not an increase in sales volume. Nope,

corporations are making out like bandits because they are

squeezing workers and also cashing in on very low interest

rates.

snip



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/business...destiny-w.html

snip

The recent release of a new economic mobility study that

was featured on PBS NewsHour brings much-needed evidence on

the difficulty of getting ahead in the United States.



The study is important not just because it suggests how

limited opportunities for mobility are in the United States.

What's new is the finding that the neighborhoods in which

children grow up affect their opportunities for mobility.

The study suggests that poor children who grow up in

communities like Detroit that don't provide income

supplements for poor working families are less likely to

escape poverty than those who grow up in places like San

Jose in which relatively generous supplements are provided.

It's difficult to get ahead, in other words, if one is so

unlucky as to be born into an ungenerous community.

snip

I'm following along and I'm reading your links now.

A related study came out just recently, lemmee see if I can find it...

Ahh here it is:

http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_new...udy-finds?lite


People aren't overwhelmed (whatever the **** that's supposed to mean)
because of being poor - they're poor because they are marginals who are
easily overwhelmed.

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

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?

--
Ed Huntress

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.

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. 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.

i

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:38:44 AM UTC-7, 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


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

That's some funny **** right there, iggy!

What CADCAM program are you using to program your robots.

What are you using for solid cut part simulation?

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:44:50 AM UTC-7, 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?



--

Ed Huntress

In the interest of safety, I can only hope that both you and iggy stand back and watch.

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:58:37 AM UTC-7, 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.

In your case Pimple there is always another drink to consume.

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:35:12 -0400, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks
wrote:

snip
The trouble with more automation that I see is that at some point ==there
has to a be human involved.== {emphasis added} 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.

If only as a consumer/customer, which implies they can
afford to purchase the product...

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. Whether it
produces anything, or pays anything,

Meantime, the GINI coefficient keeps climbing, almost constantly since
1968, and now higher than at any time since at least 1947.

It's not a healthy indicator, but this is a subject you'll have to
discuss without me. I have work to do.

--
Ed Huntress

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-)

--
Ed Huntress


i