We Need Factories for Making Products and Not for Making Jobs

[expat_panama]

... Fatcat...

Ah yes, it's so much fun to put a derogatory adjective w/ a pejorative animal and call it politics --the crazy mindless left does that all the time. Sure, that technically means I should be allowed to call say, a female a "stupid bitch" or an African-American a "lazy monkey" and then spend the rest of my life hearing the screams of RACIST CHAUVENIST!!! All this then ends up morphing into the brutal savage murderess physical attacks that the left is so prone to; but that's not the reason I avoid name calling.

imho it's a bad idea because that when I do it I feel like a low life slime. Don't get me wrong, if I didn't want to run into low life slime balls I'd never come near internet message boards. The reason I avoid name calling is that I'm just not very good at it and I find it best to leave that sort of thing to the experienced professionals who do it all the time.

So, enjoy!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Except the number of people employed in factories is dropping. Not because of the lack of production. The main issue is automation. Assemblyline workers have placed by machines.

I worked in factories all my life as a mechanical engineer.

Yes, low skill assembly line workers have been reduced in number,

But high skill jobs increased to develop, maintain, and service the machines. ...

But the net result is far fewer jobs.

When a Fatcat Goes "Me! Me! Me!" the Rest of Us Go "Ow! Ow! Ow!"

Same number of workers with fewer hours but the same pay based on the machine-enhanced greater production. The lazy fatcat parasites better remember that they are far outnumbered and outgunned.

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

[
Ah yes, it's so much fun to put a derogatory adjective w/ a pejorative animal and call it politics --the crazy mindless left does that all the time. Sure, that technically means I# should be allowed to call say, a female a "stupid bitch" or an African-American a "lazy monkey" and then spend the rest of my# life hearing the screams of RACIST CHAUVINIST!!! All this then ends up morphing into the brutal savage murderess physical attacks that the left is so prone to; but that's not the reason I# avoid name calling.

im#ho it's a bad idea because that when I# do it I# feel like a low life slime. Don't get me wrong, if I# didn't want to run into low life slime balls I#'d never come near internet message boards. The reason I# avoid name calling is that I#'m just not very good at it and I# find it best to leave that sort of thing to the experienced professionals who do it all the time.

So It's All About You, Ewe

The Left is led by the spoiled brats of the Right. When you point fingers, you're pointing in a mirror.

You use "I" more times than Obama, who was enabled by your bossy HeirHead class.

 

[WinterBorn]

Except the number of people employed in factories is dropping. Not because of the lack of production. The main issue is automation. Assemblyline workers have placed by machines.

I worked in factories all my life as a mechanical engineer.

Yes, low skill assembly line workers have been reduced in number,

But high skill jobs increased to develop, maintain, and service the machines. ...

But the net result is far fewer jobs.

When a Fatcat Goes "Me! Me! Me!" the Rest of Us Go "Ow! Ow! Ow!"

Same number of workers with fewer hours but the same pay based on the machine-enhanced greater production. The lazy fatcat parasites better remember that they are far outnumbered and outgunned.

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

If the workers are paid an hourly wage, they will make less since they work fewer hours. That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues, they don't call in sick, and the work is done far more accurately.

The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the worker's hourly pay too, is ridiculous.

 

[Correll]

Don't overheat your brain.

People build factories.....people work at the factories.

Factories make products......people buy the products.

Not that complicated when you think about it. ...

Except the number of people employed in factories is dropping. Not because of the lack of production. The main issue is automation. Assemblyline workers have placed by machines.

So, you dismiss the impact of trade policy and trade agreements on manufacturing?

 

[Indeependent]

from: The Social Machine

Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM

Jobs are a means, not an end.

Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.

American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did

...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...

...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
​

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.

Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.

The motive of a business is to make a profit.
The job of government is to maintain a healthy economy.
And I don't like it when people use percentages to advance their arguments; I want to see absolute numbers.

 

[WinterBorn]

Don't overheat your brain.

People build factories.....people work at the factories.

Factories make products......people buy the products.

Not that complicated when you think about it. ...

Except the number of people employed in factories is dropping. Not because of the lack of production. The main issue is automation. Assemblyline workers have placed by machines.

So, you dismiss the impact of trade policy and trade agreements on manufacturing?

Not at all. But I have read that automation has replaced more jobs than have been shipped overseas. I'll see if I can find a link.

 

[yiostheoy]

from: The Social Machine

Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM

Jobs are a means, not an end.

Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.

American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did

...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...

...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
​

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.

Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.

Well cars (from Germany and Japan), electronics (from Japan), household goods and clothing (from China) are all "goods" that have been lost overseas. And at home all the rash of H1B visa's to Indians and Pakistanis and Chinese have taken away jobs from citizens.

It's really a mess.

This started with Reagan and got worse every year since then.

 

[Correll]

Don't overheat your brain.

People build factories.....people work at the factories.

Factories make products......people buy the products.

Not that complicated when you think about it. ...

Except the number of people employed in factories is dropping. Not because of the lack of production. The main issue is automation. Assemblyline workers have placed by machines.

So, you dismiss the impact of trade policy and trade agreements on manufacturing?

Not at all. But I have read that automation has replaced more jobs than have been shipped overseas. I'll see if I can find a link.

And yet, Germany has more than twice the percentage of manufacturing employment that we do.

DOes that mean that they are less automated and thus less competitive?

Yet they have a massive trade surplus....

 

[Correll]

from: The Social Machine

Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM

Jobs are a means, not an end.

Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.

American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did

...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...

...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
​

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.

Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.

Well cars (from Germany and Japan), electronics (from Japan), household goods and clothing (from China) are all "goods" that have been lost overseas. And at home all the rash of H1B visa's to Indians and Pakistanis and Chinese have taken away jobs from citizens.

It's really a mess.

This started with Reagan and got worse every year since then.

It started well before Reagan.

 

[expat_panama]

...all "goods" that have been lost overseas...

read that automation has replaced more jobs than have been shipped overseas. I'll see if I can find a link.

...I want to see absolute numbers.

Let's all get on the same page, here're the manufacturing payrolls plotted along w/ the value of total manufacturing shipments:

Those of us who build factories so they can make things will be happy to know that we're doing more w/ less. Those of us that want factories used as homeless shelters will be very dissapointed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I worked in factories all my life as a mechanical engineer.

Yes, low skill assembly line workers have been reduced in number,

But high skill jobs increased to develop, maintain, and service the machines. ...

But the net result is far fewer jobs.

When a Fatcat Goes "Me! Me! Me!" the Rest of Us Go "Ow! Ow! Ow!"

Same number of workers with fewer hours but the same pay based on the machine-enhanced greater production. The lazy fatcat parasites better remember that they are far outnumbered and outgunned.

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,

The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.

Owners Aren't Earners

The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the net result is far fewer jobs.

When a Fatcat Goes "Me! Me! Me!" the Rest of Us Go "Ow! Ow! Ow!"

Same number of workers with fewer hours but the same pay based on the machine-enhanced greater production. The lazy fatcat parasites better remember that they are far outnumbered and outgunned.

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,

The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.

Owners Aren't Earners

The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.

It does not make me fel anything to discuss this issue.

But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.

The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.

What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.

 

[expat_panama]

... employees create the owner's wealth...

--so we get "workers unite you have nothing to lose but your chains as we build a worker's paradise!!!!"

Marx used to even say that managers did nothing too, his plan was to replace all managers w/ clerks. Most of us know that at first it was a disaster, shear chaos as nobody knew what the heck they were doing. Eventually the chaos died down, then they had nice, orderly mass starvation.

The problem is that they never caught on to the fact that all production requires a mix of labor plus capital. How ironic that the traditional symbol of the anti-capitalist workers are two crossed capital investments, a hammer and a sickle. A truer symbol of labor should have been say, and arm muscle, a grasping hand, or maybe a strong back.

Let's face it, labor w/o capital is as useless as capital w/o labor.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When a Fatcat Goes "Me! Me! Me!" the Rest of Us Go "Ow! Ow! Ow!"

Same number of workers with fewer hours but the same pay based on the machine-enhanced greater production. The lazy fatcat parasites better remember that they are far outnumbered and outgunned.

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,

The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.

Owners Aren't Earners

The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.

It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.

But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.

The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.

What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.

It's a Team, Not a One-Man Show

The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,

The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.

Owners Aren't Earners

The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.

It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.

But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.

The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.

What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.

It's a Team, Not a One-Man Show

The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.

The employees do not cover all his risk. And they certainly do not cover his startup expense.

And if you think the bank assumes the risk and the business owner does not, you might want to read up on business loans and the consequences of bankruptcy.

If you want the employees to own the business, organize them and get loans to buy the business. Otherwise, the business owner gets to decide what to do with HIS business. B

 

[Wyatt earp]

from: The Social Machine

Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM

Jobs are a means, not an end.

Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.

American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did

...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...

...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...
​

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.

Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.

Why does Germany have twice the percentage of manufacturing employment we do?

They don't have our pathetic liberal union teachers that's why




.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

... employees create the owner's wealth...

--so we get "workers unite you have nothing to lose but your chains as we build a worker's paradise!!!!"

Marx used to even say that managers did nothing too, his plan was to replace all managers w/ clerks. Most of us know that at first it was a disaster, shear chaos as nobody knew what the heck they were doing. Eventually the chaos died down, then they had nice, orderly mass starvation.

The problem is that they never caught on to the fact that all production requires a mix of labor plus capital. How ironic that the traditional symbol of the anti-capitalist workers are two crossed capital investments, a hammer and a sickle. A truer symbol of labor should have been say, and arm muscle, a grasping hand, or maybe a strong back.

Let's face it, labor w/o capital is as useless as capital w/o labor.

Karl Marx Was the Sex Slave of a Patty Hearst Type Duchess

Communism is led by richkids who hated their CEO fathers for neglecting them while only caring about making more and more money. It is not the product of the factory; it is the product of the university, a toxic institution designed primarily for richkids living off an allowance. So this talking-point clinic's red herring boomerangs back on the class you worship.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,

The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.

Owners Aren't Earners

The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.

It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.

But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.

The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.

What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.

It's a Team, Not a One-Man Show

The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.

Another lazy ass socialist union fuck head.....thank god your type Is dying out



.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you have an assemblyline, with 50 workers on it, and you bring in automation, you will lose workers. The machines with do the work, and there might be jobs for 5 or so maintaining the machines.

As for fewer hours, if it is not a full-time job you usually don't get any benefits.

Oinkonomics for Stuck Pigs

Those are the porcine plutocratic parasites' rules. If part-time work produces the same as full-time work used to, then it deserves the benefits of a full-time job. Automation will reduce the workday and the workers whose jobs you so sadistically think you have killed will take turns.

With the introduction of trucks, the former horse-and-buggy delivery drivers made many more deliveries and got paid more. That money circulated so that there would be buyers for the greater number of deliveries. The smug conceited Scrooges better not insist on net job losses, or they will have to run for their lives.

That is only one of the benefits of automation. Others include greater productivity, far fewer safety issues,

The idea that a factory owner would spend tons of money to automate, and then increase the workers' hourly pay too, is ridiculous.

Owners Aren't Earners

The employees create the owner's wealth, so the idea that they would make him rich so he could afford to buy machines that put them out of work is ridiculous. We do not have to worship and sacrifice for the bosses just because it gives you a smug feeling of importance when you preach that to us.

It does not make me feel anything to discuss this issue.

But the owner pays for the buildings, equipment, materials, and pays to be compliant with all the regulations. He risks all that in order to make a profit. He only gets paid if he makes a profit.

The employees get paid for performing a task. They get paid by the hour to do work. No risk.

What the owner does with his business is his choice. If he brings in automation, and lays off workers, it is his risk.

It's a Team, Not a One-Man Show

The employees cover his risk and all his start-up expenses. Besides, risk means stupidity, as in, "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Even more besides, he's usually working with a bank loan, which means the bankers are the ones taking the risk. And most besides, the employees risk the outcome that this conceited parasite will mess up the business and lay them off.

Ok, a hypothetical for you. Nothing farfetched.

Suppose I start a business manufacturing Widgets. I put up $500,000 of my own money, and borrow another $500,000 (using my house and retirement fund as collateral). I get things rolling. I'm manufacturing Widgets and doing ok. Then you come in and ask to apply for a job. You get interviews and tests ect, and I decide to hire you. You and I basically make a deal. You agree to do X Task, and I agree to pay you X Dollars per hour worked.

My question is this. How long do you have to work at Widgets Manufacturing before you, as an employee, are partners in the business?