Obama didn't blame high unemployment on ATM's- Conservatives are such liars

[Truthseeker420]

Obama: It

 

[OmniRocky]

Okay, well term "unemployment" wasn't used in the question or the answer, so in a literal sense, you're right. But Obama was asked why businesses aren't hiring right now, and he blamed automation, specifically citing ATMs and check-in kiosks at airports. So I would say, yes, Obama blamed continued unemployment partly on ATMs and check-in kiosks. I think you're mistaken to say that conservatives are liars on that point.

 

[Sherry]

It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Okay, well term "unemployment" wasn't used in the question or the answer, so in a literal sense, you're right. But Obama was asked why businesses aren't hiring right now, and he blamed automation, specifically citing ATMs and check-in kiosks at airports. So I would say, yes, Obama blamed continued unemployment partly on ATMs and check-in kiosks. I think you're mistaken to say that conservatives are liars on that point.

I should have said neoconservatives or so called conservatives. Obama was asked why companies are spending more on machinery and equipment and he gave an answer.

 

[Truthseeker420]

It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.

no it isn't, ddi you watch the interview?

 

[Sherry]

It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.

no it isn't, ddi you watch the interview?

Like a 747 right over your head.

 

[Truthseeker420]

It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.

no it isn't, ddi you watch the interview?

Like a 747 right over your head.

I'm sorry my sarcasm detector isn't working.

 

[Truthseeker420]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXmKPMaHMo]YouTube - ‪Do I detect a note of sarcasm?‬‏[/ame]

 

[Mr.Nick]

You liberals with your fucking 'whole language' bullshit...

 

[mudwhistle]

It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.

Add it to the list.

He's been to 57 states
He thinks high gas prices can be dealt with using a tire-gauge
He admitted that his Cap and Trade bill will "Necessarily" cause energy prices to sky-rocket
He thinks PA voters need to drop their guns, religion, and their bigotry
He called the Tea Party "Tea-baggers"
He made fun of his "Typically White" Grandmother
He whined that he didn't have the same opportunities that other "Conventional" candidates had
He claimed that talks between Israel and Palestinians must begin with the 1967 borders as a base
He said of Sarah Palin "You can put lip-stick on a pig, but it's still a pig"
He jumped to the conclusion that Cambridge campus cops were "stupid" when they were simply doing their jobs
He claimed at a certain point we've made enough money
He called them "Navy Corpsemen"
He said a person with Asthma uses "Breathalyzers"
He said the Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries
He believes there is an "Austrian" language
He said that John McCain had not talked about "his Muslim faith"
He claimed that Israel was a strong friend of Israel
He thinks Memorial day celebrates living, not dead soldiers

 

[editec]

Taking a sentence out of context, and giving it an absurd spin to make the author appear silly is de rigor propaganda technique.


Nevertheless, automatic is, in part, one of the reasons that unemployment is and will continue to be a problem this nation faces.

When business is off, that is the time when businesses lay off workers. And when it looks like business will becoming back, that is the time to install automation such that the cost of doing business is reduced.

The problem of techology and automation reducing the need for human employment is an ongoing and growing problem.

When one looks at industrial output one cannot help but notice that while the total output stays essantially the same or even grows, the number of workers who are needed for that output is reduced.

The other metric that confirms this is the capitalization per worker.

AS techology replaces workers, the amount of capital it took to put the remaining workers to work increases.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama: It

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2gnu1WXQk0&feature=related]YouTube - ‪The Simpsons-Lie Detector‬‏[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

Taking a sentence out of context, and giving it an absurd spin to make the author appear silly is de rigor propaganda technique.


Nevertheless, automatic is, in part, one of the reasons that unemployment is and will continue to be a problem this nation faces.

When business is off, that is the time when businesses lay off workers. And when it looks like business will becoming back, that is the time to install automation such that the cost of doing business is reduced.

The problem of techology and automation reducing the need for human employment is an ongoing and growing problem.

When one looks at industrial output one cannot help but notice that while the total output stays essantially the same or even grows, the number of workers who are needed for that output is reduced.

The other metric that confirms this is the capitalization per worker.

AS techology replaces workers, the amount of capital it took to put the remaining workers to work increases.

I can't believe you're actually defending his stupidity.

Anyone who's worked in a factory knows that some automation is a God-send, not a liability. Some functions are made safer with automation. Others are designed to increase production. For example: A fire-wall used in building a Gas-package HVAC unit needs to have holes punched in specific points on the sheet of metal used. Somebody built a machine that can be programmed to punch the holes in the same exact place churning out hundreds of fire-walls in an 8 hr shift. Somebody has to still work the machine, change the program, pick up the sheet of metal, place it in the machine and stomp on the foot petal to begin the process. Instead of requiring a trained Sheetmetal mechanic to lay out every individual sheet with measuring tools and scribes the machine does it all for you.

A skilled technician has to maintain the machine when it breaks down. The function of building the part no longer take a skilled craftsman. Now anyone with half a brain can do the job. In the process you have also created a job that requires specialized skills that keep up with current technology just to maintain the punch machine. So instead of one worker you have at least two in it's place and much more productivity and consequentially a lot less error involved. This means instead of rebuilding the unit when it breaks, parts can be ordered and replaced. Somebody in a warehouse now has a job and a private HVAC repairman also has a job.

Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know the inner workings of companies. He's just looking at it from his perspective and he thinks he's so smart that he knows exactly the cause and effect of everything involved.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again, conservatives prove themselves to be either clueless or liars. Obama answered the question correctly. He was asked about business spending just 2% on new jobs and 26% on technology improvements. He responded that it relates to efficiency and used the example of ATMs as one of those efficiencies

Only a conservative could twist that to imply that Obama is blaming ATMs

 

[daveman]

I guess Obama doesn't realize that it takes people to build the machines companies are buying.

 

[editec]

Taking a sentence out of context, and giving it an absurd spin to make the author appear silly is de rigor propaganda technique.


Nevertheless, automatic is, in part, one of the reasons that unemployment is and will continue to be a problem this nation faces.

When business is off, that is the time when businesses lay off workers. And when it looks like business will becoming back, that is the time to install automation such that the cost of doing business is reduced.

The problem of techology and automation reducing the need for human employment is an ongoing and growing problem.

When one looks at industrial output one cannot help but notice that while the total output stays essantially the same or even grows, the number of workers who are needed for that output is reduced.

The other metric that confirms this is the capitalization per worker.

AS techology replaces workers, the amount of capital it took to put the remaining workers to work increases.

I can't believe you're actually defending his stupidity.

Good thing you cannot believe that because I wasn't defending anybody's anything.

I was expressing my opinion about the nature of techology and how it is effecting labor.

Anyone who's worked in a factory knows that some automation is a God-send, not a liability.

I used to work in the DIXIE CUP factory in Easton, Pa., lad. I think I know a little something about what its like to work in a factory.

Some functions are made safer with automation.

Yes, true. Not germane to the issue I was raising, but definitely true.

Others are designed to increase production. For example: A fire-wall used in building a Gas-package HVAC unit needs to have holes punched in specific points on the sheet of metal used. Somebody built a machine that can be programmed to punch the holes in the same exact place churning out hundreds of fire-walls in an 8 hr shift. Somebody has to still work the machine, change the program, pick up the sheet of metal, place it in the machine and stomp on the foot petal to begin the process. Instead of requiring a trained Sheetmetal mechanic to lay out every individual sheet with measuring tools and scribes the machine does it all for you.

Did it increase output? Yes it did. And by increasing per man hour output what is a sage owner likely to do if that increased output does not have a market?

Let some workers go?

Of course, he'd be a damned fool not to, wouldn't he?

A skilled technician has to maintain the machine when it breaks down. The function of building the part no longer take a skilled craftsman. Now anyone with half a brain can do the job. In the process you have also created a job that requires specialized skills that keep up with current technology just to maintain the punch machine. So instead of one worker you have at least two in it's place and much more productivity and consequentially a lot less error involved. This means instead of rebuilding the unit when it breaks, parts can be ordered and replaced. Somebody in a warehouse now has a job and a private HVAC repairman also has a job.

We can all invent situations where new techology leads to EXACTLY the same number of workers, lad.

That proves nothing whatever except that in some cases such thing do happen.

But the overall aspect of increased efficiency in an otherwise static market is a decrease in labor hours necessary to supple the demand.

You do understand such things as supply demand and efficiency do you not?

Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know the inner workings of companies. He's just looking at it from his perspective and he thinks he's so smart that he knows exactly the cause and effect of everything involved.

Here's what's going on between us.

You think I give a flying fuck about Obama.

I don't.

My point was addressing the impact of efficiency increases.

If Obama said that efficiency increases are leading to falling demand for workers, then he was right about that.

But really I don't care one way or the other what he said, or for that matter, how much you loathe the guy.

Save you partisan asshat comments for partisans.

I don't give a tinker's damn who you hate or why.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, Obama did blame ATMs (and other technologies):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIBhg1v4bMo]YouTube - ‪Obama: ATM and Airport Kiosk Machines Cause Unemployment‬‏[/ame]

“There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,” President Obama told Ann Curry on the “Today” show Tuesday. “You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”

Blame the ATM! - NYPOST.com



There is NO WAY that Big Government can identify what types of jobs will be needed in the future and efficiently allocate capital to their creation.

Everywhere this has been tried before has turned into an Epic Fail.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you disagree with Obama that industries have learned to be more efficient replacing workers with new technology?

 

[mudwhistle]

Taking a sentence out of context, and giving it an absurd spin to make the author appear silly is de rigor propaganda technique.


Nevertheless, automatic is, in part, one of the reasons that unemployment is and will continue to be a problem this nation faces.

When business is off, that is the time when businesses lay off workers. And when it looks like business will becoming back, that is the time to install automation such that the cost of doing business is reduced.

The problem of techology and automation reducing the need for human employment is an ongoing and growing problem.

When one looks at industrial output one cannot help but notice that while the total output stays essantially the same or even grows, the number of workers who are needed for that output is reduced.

The other metric that confirms this is the capitalization per worker.

AS techology replaces workers, the amount of capital it took to put the remaining workers to work increases.

Good thing you cannot believe that because I wasn't defending anybody's anything.

I was expressing my opinion about the nature of techology and how it is effecting labor.





I used to work in the DIXIE CUP factory in Easton, Pa., lad. I think I know a little something about what its like to work in a factory.




Yes, true. Not germane to the issue I was raising, but definitely true.


Did it increase output? Yes it did. And by increasing per man hour output what is a sage owner likely to do if that increased output does not have a market?

Let some workers go?

Of course, he'd be a damned fool not to, wouldn't he?





We can all invent situations where new techology leads to EXACTLY the same number of workers, lad.

That proves nothing whatever except that in some cases such thing do happen.

But the overall aspect of increased efficiency in an otherwise static market is a decrease in labor hours necessary to supple the demand.

You do understand such things as supply demand and efficiency do you not?

Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know the inner workings of companies. He's just looking at it from his perspective and he thinks he's so smart that he knows exactly the cause and effect of everything involved.

Here's what's going on between us.

You think I give a flying fuck about Obama.

I don't.

My point was addressing the impact of efficiency increases.

If Obama said that efficiency increases are leading to falling demand for workers, then he was right about that.

But really I don't care one way or the other what he said, or for that matter, how much you loathe the guy.

Save you partisan asshat comments for partisans.

I don't give a tinker's damn who you hate or why.

RLMAO!!!!!

Where in my post did it say I hated him??

Point it out to me.

I just said he doesn't know what he's talking about and proved it.

And nether do you. Lad.

 

[mudwhistle]

The major problem I've always had with Obama is that the media has built him up so much and the guy actually seems to believe it.

Problem is there are folks out there that can recognize when somebody is full of shit because they to know more about what he's saying then he does.

You can't BS your way through life like he does and not expect somebody out there to call him on it.