Yes, really now. You went from stating your opinion as a certainty to qualifying it. Automation doesn't have anything to do with retail pricing. A business will charge whatever they need to in order to maximize profit, automation has nothing at all to do with that. I like how you obviously went out onto Google, realized you were wrong, and then adopted my position against me as if that's what you were saying before. Whatever, as long as you realize you were wrong that's fine by me.
Why not simply pay people to do something else, other than compete in the market for labor, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
I never stated that automation 'would' lower prices, and my first response "While it doesn't have to, it often does relative to what human labour would cost to produce each item allowing a lower sales price of a larger quantity to produce the same or more profits than could be done by human labour alone." seems to have been ignored or beyond your comprehension. If automation has nothing at all to do with maximizing profits,why would it occur? I do often use google to see if there is a synonym more fitting for what I would like to say as I haven't used English language very much for the last few decades. If anything, I reworded slightly as you appeared to not understand what I previously wrote and I haven't adopted your position nor have I changed my position in the slightest. While competition and many other things may have something to do with lowering prices, I try to remain on topic as I pointed out in item #2 of my post. Perhaps you should recognize that I was right in my initial response to your original question and that your response to my answer questioning "You believe in markets right?" might be more fitting to asking 'WHY' does automation occur.
Cut him some slack, he's a non-native English speaker. Besides,...I think the main point here is that you're both in agreement that increased automation does not necessarily lead to decreased consumer prices...even as profits for a business rise in response to it. Its as I've said before in another thread, the only things that really force a business to reduce prices (other than mandate), are competition from other businesses or a customer base that has become too poor to afford to buy enough of a particular product at a specific price point in order to keep a business in business......Similarly, the only thing that forces a business to raise wages (other than unions or government) is competition with other employers over a limited pool of needed talent. Absent the above factors, the motivation for pretty much any business is understandably going to be towards maximizing profits over raising wages or reducing prices. -Meta
You seem intent on trying to make a false accusation stick. Your initial question: was given my response of: Parsing your question, you asked "How does automation lower the price of anything?" Parsing my response you should see that immediately I began with "... it doesn't have to", which could be construed as meaning automation could occur with the price of the product remaining the same, rising, or lowering. That, in my opinion, answered your question. But then I went on to provide one reason automation, even when no competition existed, could result in lowering the price of anything stating how automation without competitive market force could lower the product price as much more profits might be acquired by making the price more affordable to a larger consumer base, simply by reducing the per item profit. At that point I had fully answered your original question fully, by admitting that automation did not necessarily have to lower prices of anything, but with no other causation 'how' it could result in lower prices AND increase profits making it desirable for a business to reduce prices solely as a result of automation. And now I have nothing further to say other than please refrain from making false accusations, as I've shown that my first response fully answered you original question.
My father's company attempted to build an office building without unions (completely legal). Every night while it was under construction, union thugs would vandalize the building. We could send in union thugs to destroy the fast food kiosks.
One idea tax the automation as if it was a union standard employee at that position or the minimum wage plus $1 whichever is higher including overtime for FICA and all other taxes and the matching company commitment that would make hiring a live person, somewhat preferential, especially is said machine works "over" 40 hours a week. And yes including the Obamacare penalty. Make using said automation to replace workers not an option at all.
This thread appears to imply that "automation" is a problem. If we were to eliminate all automation completely would our lives improve? Suppose all farming was to be done using only hand tools and human labour? How many could afford the basic needs at the cost of being produced by human labour alone today? Automation has been and continues to be a solution to providing a growing population with its basic needs at an affordable cost, while the means by which they are acquired has resulted in the creation/production of innumerable wants resulting in the employment of those who are not needed in the production of our basic needs. The problem is NOT automation but instead a growing population AND the growing number of wants becoming viewed as entitlements or needs, most of which would never have come into existence had it not been for automation to begin with.
I believe we merely need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation, and let capitalism do the rest.
I would add that there is also a problem of the labor force in general not being prepared to take advantage of the opportunities presented by automation. The history of man's increase in the standard of living has been to increase productivity by producing products (food for example) with fewer and fewer people. The result of this is a greater opportunity for jobs in the service industries which were luxuries a few decades before. The problem is that people are not trained to take advantage of those job opportunities. It is often stated (in a negative connotation) that the US economy is a service economy implying that we don't actually manufacture or build things anymore. We do actually manufacture at the same percentage of gdp but with fewer people. The increase in services is a sign of a high standard of living. Of course this is all falls apart if the economy does not grow sufficiently as is the case in the Obama economy.
I believe we merely need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation, and let capitalism do the rest to solve for automation.
And you know they were union thugs because they were arrested and the local union was indicted for conspiracy along with those guilty of committing the vandalism.... is that correct? Now that would have made the news so do you have a link to the story? Or are you just pulling this opinion out of a rectal cavity because you want to believe it was union thugs?
That does nothing to address the underlying problem because the implementation of automation by enterprise is based upon a cost/benefit analysis so either an increase in labor costs and/or a reduction in the costs of automation creates even more automation. The underlying problem is the distribution of the wealth being created where two different, and juxtaposed, economic ideologies exist. First we have John Locke that advocated the natural right to "use or consume" that which is produced based upon the labor of the "generalist" that provides all they require for the "support and comfort" of the household but that also argued for commerce (not a natural right) because "specialization" that traded in commerce produces far more than what the generalist can produce. In Locke's proposition through specialization and commerce more would be produced for everyone so we there would be the "Have More and the Have Even More" throughout society. The economic ideology that opposed this was promoted by Adam Smith were property was "owned based upon title" that was the economic system that pre-dated John Locke's arguments for natural rights that was established under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings that Locke had argued against. Under Smith's economic ideology there are the "Haves and Have-Nots" which is exactly what we have in America today. Today we know that Locke was right because we have about a $16 trillion economy, producing far more than is necessary for every household to have far more than what they really require for their support and comfort. It would only require about 1/4th of the wealth being produced in America to ensure that every household had more than what they actually require for their basic support and comfort but our wealth isn't being distributed based upon Locke's arguments of commerce. It's being retained by the "wealthy social elite" under the doctrine of "Title of Ownership" that violates the natural right of property of the people. Wealth distribution is the key because if we have wealth distribution for "use and consumption" based upon the natural right of property instead of property ownership established by title then automation is wonderful because it produces more that what we can produce with human labor and the distribution improves everyone's standard of living resulting in the "Have Mores and the Have Even Mores" in society under capitalism. It's just not the capitalism that Adam Smith advocated that's not based upon the natural right of property and that inherently violates the natural right of property. John Locke v Adam Smith is the key to understanding the problem of automation. Automation under Locke it's wonderful for the people because everyone benefits while automation under Smith it's horrible for the people because the "capitalists" (owners of enterprise) are the only ones that benefit.
Now that's just silly...In my view, automation-induced unemployment and underemployment is a serious issue, and we need a serious solution to ensure that our economy still works going forward into a more automated world. -Meta
Yes, it does. It solves for simple poverty and the capital effects of capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis and at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage. Just supply side economics supplying us with better governance at lower cost.
That is a very bad idea in my view. And if anything should be taxed, it is the profits in general which should be taxed (or resources in general), much of which will be generated due to increased automation, but we shouldn't tax the automation itself. The goal here should not be to discourage the use of automation in general, as despite the potential negative side-effects, automation is at its core a good thing which makes us more efficient. We as a society only need ensure that the benefits of said automation+the natural resources finds some other avenue to reach those who are displaced,....preferably by taking some of the money that the automation saved and putting it towards hiring the displaced to do something else which is useful...And if it takes taxes for that to happen, then the taxes should indeed be implemented,...just not to a level which eliminates or is intended to eliminate the extra efficiency that the automation created in the first place. -Meta
$15/hr doesn't help the worker that's displaced because automation can cost effectively replace the labor they once performed. All you have is another unemployed worker looking for a job but fewer job openings for more unemployed people. By analogy this is like Medicare/Medicaid health insurance. Because both only pay about 90% of costs of the medical provider the medical provider loses money in providing services. Because the lose money we find that about 95% of private clinics, not hospitals that are required to provide services because they receive huge government subsidies, refuse to accept new Medicare/Medicaid patients. The person is insured but when it comes to receiving services they can't get them because the insurance alone is basically worthless. Once again if we increase the minimum wage it will reduce poverty but only until the automation has a chance to replace the jobs. It's a bandaid a symptom of a much deeper problem based upon economic philosophy. It's like taking aspirin to relieve the pain of a brain tumor. It relieves the pain but the person still dies from the tumor. We can use another analogy. In the 1930's Congress identified the problem that about 1/2 of American households didn't accumulate enough assets (wealth) to provide income when they became too old to work. Instead of addressing the problem (a lack of accumulated assets) they addressed the symptom by providing the "income" under Social Security. The problem remained and in the 1960's Medicare was created because 1/2 of the people at retirement age still didn't have the assets to provide income to fund the purchase of private health insurance. Addressing the symptoms of a problem never resolves the problem.
the illegal immigrants sent Americans on welfare, now its the robots. union thugs are the least of our problems, now we have a revolution in our midst of unemployed or underemployed people wanting to bring sweat shop jobs back to America by negotiating new trade deals. the solution to automation is either building a wall to keep the robots out, or redistributing the wealth of the rich to the people for paid training, free education, free health care, and every other handout they could possibly need to succeed in the new high tech economy. naturally there will be people who won't compete because they can't or don't want too, and they should be given generous welfare from the profits made by the robots so they can pursue happiness as well.
robots solve mundane tasks, like vacuuming the floor with the round one. to resolve the problem we need to invest in creative thinking, so that people can be like Steve Jobs. he had the resources to put his ideas to work since he had the privilege of capital at his finger tips. we need to bring that privilege to the common people instead of exclusive to the crony capitalist, because there are many intelligent creative thinkers who with access to capital have the potential to bring newer innovations to the market that would create many jobs.
The problem is that "something else which is useful" can't be based upon human labor, both physical and intellectual, because it's the physical and intellectual labor that the automation replaces. About the only thing that automation really can't replace is human intellectual knowledge and advancement that benefits mankind as a whole. So how do we provide compensation for human learning that benefits mankind is a key question. That's a very big IF (i.e. If it takes taxes).. Taxation is obviously the easy way out but probably not the best way out of the problems associated with human labor becoming obsolete through automation. Taxation should be the last possible option and not the first possible option to explore.
Actually automation is more prone to perform very complex tasks like engineering a highly advanced aircraft. Nine out of ten tasks previously performed by mechanical engineers in developing an aircraft design are now done by computers in nanoseconds while the engineer could spend weeks manually doing the computations. I worked on the F-117 which was the last hand-engineered military aircraft. I also worked on the B-2 Bomber that was designed by computers and the complexity of the B-2 aircraft exterior profile alone was far beyond the capability of the top human engineers to design.
vacuuming the floor was once considered a very complex task. a robot is not self aware yet, so when the rich steal humanity with robots for profits without giving humans anything in return, they limit the human potential to create new problems that only humans need to be solved.
