Discussion in 'Politics' started by Antares, Oct 24, 2014.
A perception that often comes from someone who never had to make those decisions on the other end of the hiring table.
If today, everyone stopped buying General Motors cars and trucks, what do you think will be laid off? The MACHINES. Fuck no. It will be the production workers.
Again, lack of demand causes layoff of human workers.
You all are still all cornfused about this.
Beside that you dipshit. Replacing human jobs with machines does not cause layoffs. It causes human workers to be fired. They no longer have a job. They have been replaced by a machine. Nice try though.
Why would a corporation lay you off when your job has been replaced by a machine?
We had General Motors close their manufacturing plant In this state and move it's production elsewhere. However, you have proven yet again a two dimensional view when it comes to layoffs and demand.
You honestly think a corporation that's competing in a GLOBAL market, is somehow restricted and limited to assembling those vehicles within the confines of some imaginary "boarders". of a state or nation? Now when GMC decides to layoff off those workers, and MOVE their facility elsewhere to another location, does that at all reduce the consumer demand for its GMC trucks or SUVs? The reality is sales have already proven that WHERE a vehicle is made, is no longer a determining factor behind the decision to purchase a new car or truck. The "demand" to own a GMC vehicle will not change, those orders will continue to be supplied from ANY location GMC chooses to build them, and those workers effected will STILL be holding their layoff slips ...long after the demand for their cars and trucks goes up.
Not at all, because robotics on an assembly line are often proven to be more efficient at getting the job done over a human assembly line. This while meeting a cheaper long term cost, as cost and efficiency are major factors for a business to remain competitive.
And what did that do for American workers? Have you cornfused me with someone who gives a shit about jobs for foreign workers. Must have.
This thread is and has been about jobs for Americans. It delved into the fact that IF demand does not create jobs (which has been the position of many participating in this thread) then how is it possible that the lack of demand causes lay offs?
You want to support jobs created by American companies for foreign workers, I guess that's your decision.
But don't go trying to obfuscate
Lack of demand for a manufacturers product causes the lay offs of it human workers. In this country or elsewhere. But the elsewhere I don't give a shit about.
Replacing human workers with machines is cause for the humans jobs to be eliminated entirely. Demand is not the issue.
Your last sentence. How can demand not be the issue when those jobs are eliminated if demand is the sole creator of jobs?
Forget it. Zeke is too far into the Blatz to realize he's been snookered by his own views.
YOU said layoffs are only the result of a loss of demand. I successfully gave an example where General Motors moved out of the state resulting in layoffs YET there is no loss in demand for GMC trucks and cars. These jobs could have moved to another state or overseas. My point was made that layoffs and hirings aren't simply made as a result of demand, other factors come into play - cost of government regulations can cut into hiring, robotics and computer advancements in assembly lines can prove more efficient and replace workers. Now that I provided an answer and explanation that you don't want to hear, you want to throw a tantrum about jobs.
I can't find your message about health care, and what if people can't afford to pay.
1. what about shoes? If people can't afford shoes they can't go to school, go to businesses or restaurants that require shoes, and can injure themselves and cause greater health care costs if they cut up their feet walking barefoot especially
in dangerous sites that require shoes.
Does this mean we should mandate govt to pay for people's shoes?
2. what about housing? since people can't vote if they don't have an address,
do we have to require all people to get housing through govt? since this affects their security,
and also their representation in govt and right to vote.
since we could house more people if everyone agreed to live in lower cost apts and public housing,
should all people be required to live under govt housing (and pay fines and higher taxes for private houses)
to pay for houses for people who cannot afford it?
3. who brought you into the world without the ability to make sure
you had enough enough resources to have shoes, and/or adequate
education so you could support yourself?
especially if you are prochoice and believe it is a choice to have a child,
who is responsible for that choice? and for making sure you can cover
housing and clothing and teach children to be independent and not depend on others?
4. for health care, why don't people have equal choice to pay for health
care through schools, charities, businesses, nonprofits?
Why can it "only be provided by govt"
Why is that the only choice?
And why aren't people respected equally who have other beliefs besides govt?
Some people want EQUAL choice to choose the public option or private.
Some people don't belive federal govt has any authority at all to make taxpayers pay for this,and
only believe in private choices.
Since there are political beliefs involved, why aren't these treated equally
1. belief in govt only such as Singlepayer that can ONLY be done through govt and no other way
2. belief in equal choice but favoring govt as the default, and leaving private sector as secondary options without penalty
3. belief in equal choice but favoring private sector as the default, and leaving govt as a separate option without penalty
4. belief in private sector as the default, where govt can be a venue if laws are passed by consent but cannot be forced
5. belief that govt cannot provide health care at all as unconstitutional and this cannot be changed.
power belongs to the state or to the people, so if people choose to set this up by state that is lawful but not federal govt.
Because the majority of people's beliefs are moderate and "optional"
it is assumed that all opposition to the bill is "optional".
The beliefs in state powers, and/or issues of political beliefs requiring consent of the governed instead of mandating
through federal govt, are being skirted by assuming these are not inherent beliefs protected by govt,
but are "optional" to consider as generic political opposition and not inherent beliefs or creeds similar to religions.
Separate names with a comma.