Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong

[Billy000]

See the link in my signature. It explains everything.

Thanks for the link.
It doesn't explain why productivity has grown.

Try again?

Um because capital has grown? More people are spending money? Businesses are making higher profits? Do you not understand how capitalism works?

Um because capital has grown?

Poor workers are investing their capital to increase their productivity?
Or is someone else investing?

Do you even know what you're trying to say? Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Of course.

Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Obviously. Glad we're on the same page.

If a rich business owner invests $1,000,000 on equipment to double a worker's productivity, does that mean the worker should get double the salary?

No it does not. They do need an increase in pay though. Nationwide for decades wages have been flat, cost of living is up, and so is productivity. Don't you think that's a problem?

 

[Norman]

Thanks for the link.
It doesn't explain why productivity has grown.

Try again?

Um because capital has grown? More people are spending money? Businesses are making higher profits? Do you not understand how capitalism works?

Um because capital has grown?

Poor workers are investing their capital to increase their productivity?
Or is someone else investing?

Do you even know what you're trying to say? Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Of course.

Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Obviously. Glad we're on the same page.

If a rich business owner invests $1,000,000 on equipment to double a worker's productivity, does that mean the worker should get double the salary?

No it does not. They do need an increase in pay though. Nationwide for decades wages have been flat, cost of living is up, and so is productivity. Don't you think that's a problem?

Yes, and it's caused among other things by the expansion of the government.

Let's make the government smaller again, so people can keep more of their earnings. Then their net wage goes up!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the link.
It doesn't explain why productivity has grown.

Try again?

Um because capital has grown? More people are spending money? Businesses are making higher profits? Do you not understand how capitalism works?

Um because capital has grown?

Poor workers are investing their capital to increase their productivity?
Or is someone else investing?

Do you even know what you're trying to say? Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Of course.

Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Obviously. Glad we're on the same page.

If a rich business owner invests $1,000,000 on equipment to double a worker's productivity, does that mean the worker should get double the salary?

No it does not. They do need an increase in pay though. Nationwide for decades wages have been flat, cost of living is up, and so is productivity. Don't you think that's a problem?

No it does not.

You feeling okay? You're making sense.

They do need an increase in pay though.

How much?

Nationwide for decades wages have been flat

You need to be a lot more specific than that.

 

[The Great Goose]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

That is bullshit!
FACTS...
Assume you were a kid 40 years ago.
That would be 1976.
The Average unskilled workers wage was : Average Indexed Monthly Earnings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View attachment 73917

$9,226 that works out to $768 per month.
Suggested retail price for 1976 Datsun 280 z... $6,594 Money for car loans is ample, but interest rates are still up (February 22, 1976)

$6,594 auto loan for 4 years at 10.2% or monthly payment of $177... two cars $344.
Money for car loans is ample, but interest rates are still up (February 22, 1976)

Home loan: 3 bedroom Jan 1976 Average price $45,900.. https://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf
At average rate of 8.7% April 1976 Mortgage Rates
Monthly payment $359.
So 2 cars and home payment add up to $703!
That left $65/month to buy food, clothing, pay utilities, etc....
You are full of shit!!!

View attachment 73917


View attachment 73922

Stop lying.

 

[The Great Goose]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

So why do people nowadays settle for little in comparison?

Gutlessness is wide spread.

 

[Kosh]

Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong

Yes and it got worse under far left rule..

Which proves that voting far left is never the answer!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Would you like for me to post some statistics on our so called poor? I have them right here in my folder; actually, several of them if you'd like. Not biased either. Some use the US Census data to create those statistics.

Enlighten me.

It's not causing any problem because people don't get or stay wealthy because of the tax codes. They get wealthy investing, working, and having businesses.

Wealth distribution is a tremendous problem, I'd put it in the top 3. I don't agree with all of bernies ideas but he hits the nail on the head with this one and our corrupt campaign system. Those two he is right on, you should open your mind to what he is saying.

If there is wealth redistribution, wouldn't somebody or some people have to be in charge of that? And if so, who are these people?

Taxation is wealth redistribution... The fuckers over at the IRS handle it. You know this so why are you asking?

Because I wanted to see you give the wrong answer.

The person in charge of wealth redistribution is you.......not just you, me too.....everybody here.

Sometime this week, you are willingly going to transfer your wealth to the top. You are going to buy that Microsoft program you desired, or you will buy one of their video games for your X-box. Have cable television? Whoops, there goes more of your hard earned money to the top. How about that smart phone of yours? That's right, more of your money to the top. Speaking of cell phones, how much of your money to you pay to the top for the service you are getting?

If you want to see wealth transfers stopped, then stop buying things. Don't buy gas anymore because those oil companies are billionaires. Hungry, wait until you get home. McDonald's is a multi-billion dollar corporation you know. And what are you doing on this internet? If you want to stop your money from going to the top, turn this thing off right now and cancel your internet service.

When I was a kid growing up back in the 70's, our entertainment was outside. In the winter, inside with a 25" color television set with rabbit ears. Only one car was in the family--Dad's. If you got sick of television, there were always books to read or a radio to listen to. That's all we spent our money on.

That's one approach... Have everybody stop buying shit, shouldn't be too hard... Or we can work to make a better system by increasing our economic understanding and focusing on creating more oppotunity for our youth, poor and middle class... You rally people on your idea and I'll promote mine and we will see who makes more progress

Probably I would because at least people would have a basic understanding on how the rich get their money; the rich get their money from us--the little people.

Of course we just don't give it to them. They trade their products and services for our money.

Now if you think we should demand our money back, don't you think it's fair we return their products to them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong

Translation: I can't prove there's anything wrong with it, or even find any evidence that the rich people somehow stole from the poor people. But if I keep telling the same lie over and over, my mentor says that people will believe it and it will become The Truth. And enough people might get fooled into voting for me, that I'll win anyway.

This logic isn't hard to figure out. Productivity in the lower classes has skyrocketed in the last few decades yet wages have remained flat. All of the income gains are going to the top earners. Why is this bad besides the obvious? If the middle class continues to shrink, the economy will become destabilized because of inadequate consumer spending. The entire economy can only thrive if the middle class is thriving.

Correct, productivity has increased, but not by people--by machines.

The number one job killer in industry today is automation. Even McDonald's restaurants are turning to automation to cut down on labor. Machines don't have one shift, they work 24/7 with little supervision. Machines don't demand higher wages and you don't have to provide a machine with medical benefits. You just maintain the thing once in a while and repair it when it breaks down from time to time.

Yeah sure automation plays a role, but it's stupid to think that's the sole factor for the increase in productivity. People are still in the workforce you know that right? The economy still depends on human workers regardless of automation. We are talking about a rate that's grown 100%.

I guess I can't convince you of anything, but perhaps an economist might. This is an excerpt from Dr. Walter Williams. It's a bit dated (which makes it even better) and here's what he wrote:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

 

[Billy000]

Um because capital has grown? More people are spending money? Businesses are making higher profits? Do you not understand how capitalism works?

Um because capital has grown?

Poor workers are investing their capital to increase their productivity?
Or is someone else investing?

Do you even know what you're trying to say? Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Of course.

Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Obviously. Glad we're on the same page.

If a rich business owner invests $1,000,000 on equipment to double a worker's productivity, does that mean the worker should get double the salary?

No it does not. They do need an increase in pay though. Nationwide for decades wages have been flat, cost of living is up, and so is productivity. Don't you think that's a problem?

No it does not.

You feeling okay? You're making sense.

They do need an increase in pay though.

How much?

Nationwide for decades wages have been flat

You need to be a lot more specific than that.

Because wages have been flat all across the board, the government must step in and raise the minimum wage. It should have been raised years ago, but to start it should be at least $12 per hour. When the cost of living is considered, the mimimum wage should be $23 per hour. Obviously that would be too big of a jump. That's why we must start small at 12 and hopefully go up in the coming years.

 

[Billy000]

Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong

Translation: I can't prove there's anything wrong with it, or even find any evidence that the rich people somehow stole from the poor people. But if I keep telling the same lie over and over, my mentor says that people will believe it and it will become The Truth. And enough people might get fooled into voting for me, that I'll win anyway.

This logic isn't hard to figure out. Productivity in the lower classes has skyrocketed in the last few decades yet wages have remained flat. All of the income gains are going to the top earners. Why is this bad besides the obvious? If the middle class continues to shrink, the economy will become destabilized because of inadequate consumer spending. The entire economy can only thrive if the middle class is thriving.

Correct, productivity has increased, but not by people--by machines.

The number one job killer in industry today is automation. Even McDonald's restaurants are turning to automation to cut down on labor. Machines don't have one shift, they work 24/7 with little supervision. Machines don't demand higher wages and you don't have to provide a machine with medical benefits. You just maintain the thing once in a while and repair it when it breaks down from time to time.

Yeah sure automation plays a role, but it's stupid to think that's the sole factor for the increase in productivity. People are still in the workforce you know that right? The economy still depends on human workers regardless of automation. We are talking about a rate that's grown 100%.

I guess I can't convince you of anything, but perhaps an economist might. This is an excerpt from Dr. Walter Williams. It's a bit dated (which makes it even better) and here's what he wrote:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

Ok so he's saying automation is contributing to productivity? No shit. I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean human workers haven't played a substantial role in the increase of productivity. By your logic, low level jobs for humans wouldn't exist at all now would they?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Translation: I can't prove there's anything wrong with it, or even find any evidence that the rich people somehow stole from the poor people. But if I keep telling the same lie over and over, my mentor says that people will believe it and it will become The Truth. And enough people might get fooled into voting for me, that I'll win anyway.

This logic isn't hard to figure out. Productivity in the lower classes has skyrocketed in the last few decades yet wages have remained flat. All of the income gains are going to the top earners. Why is this bad besides the obvious? If the middle class continues to shrink, the economy will become destabilized because of inadequate consumer spending. The entire economy can only thrive if the middle class is thriving.

Correct, productivity has increased, but not by people--by machines.

The number one job killer in industry today is automation. Even McDonald's restaurants are turning to automation to cut down on labor. Machines don't have one shift, they work 24/7 with little supervision. Machines don't demand higher wages and you don't have to provide a machine with medical benefits. You just maintain the thing once in a while and repair it when it breaks down from time to time.

Yeah sure automation plays a role, but it's stupid to think that's the sole factor for the increase in productivity. People are still in the workforce you know that right? The economy still depends on human workers regardless of automation. We are talking about a rate that's grown 100%.

I guess I can't convince you of anything, but perhaps an economist might. This is an excerpt from Dr. Walter Williams. It's a bit dated (which makes it even better) and here's what he wrote:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

Ok so he's saying automation is contributing to productivity? No shit. I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean human workers haven't played a substantial role in the increase of productivity. By your logic, low level jobs for humans wouldn't exist at all now would they?

I think you should read it again.

What he is saying is that while job loss went up--production went up. It's evident that the output of goods are due to automation and not man. It's not a contributing factor, it's the main factor.

And yes, as we progress down this road, it's only a matter of time until human labor is no longer needed in manufacturing. I work with manufacturing and I see it all the time.

But it's not just manufacturing. For instance, I went to see my doctor a few months ago. I went to the desk that I always go to to check in. I was stunned to see that nobody was behind the desk and that all the lights were off.

From the waiting room, a woman came by to escort me to their new kiosks. Now you have to check yourself in. The Cleveland Clinic got rid of the humans.

I don't know about you, but my local grocery store is opening up more self-serve checkouts and less cashier lines. They are trying to train their customers to depend on those checkouts to eliminate cashier jobs. Sure, you can still go to the cashier lines, but like self-serve gasoline pumps, it's only a matter of time before they are all self-serve.

 

[healthmyths]

Um because capital has grown?

Poor workers are investing their capital to increase their productivity?
Or is someone else investing?

Do you even know what you're trying to say? Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Of course.

Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Obviously. Glad we're on the same page.

If a rich business owner invests $1,000,000 on equipment to double a worker's productivity, does that mean the worker should get double the salary?

No it does not. They do need an increase in pay though. Nationwide for decades wages have been flat, cost of living is up, and so is productivity. Don't you think that's a problem?

No it does not.

You feeling okay? You're making sense.

They do need an increase in pay though.

How much?

Nationwide for decades wages have been flat

You need to be a lot more specific than that.

Because wages have been flat all across the board, the government must step in and raise the minimum wage. It should have been raised years ago, but to start it should be at least $12 per hour. When the cost of living is considered, the mimimum wage should be $23 per hour. Obviously that would be too big of a jump. That's why we must start small at 12 and hopefully go up in the coming years.

MY goodness you guys are so stupid!
How many people work at "minimum wage" should be your first question!
ANSWER!!!
Of the 3.5 million working at minimum wage:
50.6% or 1,797,000 were mostly employed teenagers age 16 to 24 years
Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

NOW how many of those people working at minimum wage under age 24 have NO qualifications except they learn how to get to work often and on time!
That's all they learn and that's the start of their working experience!
BUT you f...king idiots are going to KILL that because YOU don't comprehend the economics!
$15.00 hour makes it NOW more worthwhile to buy robots to replace these young kids!
But you idiots don't use any of the internet to learn. You spout stupidity about "minimum wage" and yet have NO idea that less then 4% of the working force get paid minimum wage!
All you are doing is putting more people out of work!

Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants
The industry could be ready for another jolt as a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour nears in the District and as other campaigns to boost wages gain traction around the country. About 30 percent of the restaurant industry’s costs come from salaries, so burger-flipping robots — or at least super-fast ovens that expedite the process — become that much more cost-competitive if the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is doubled.

Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants

 

[Billy000]

This logic isn't hard to figure out. Productivity in the lower classes has skyrocketed in the last few decades yet wages have remained flat. All of the income gains are going to the top earners. Why is this bad besides the obvious? If the middle class continues to shrink, the economy will become destabilized because of inadequate consumer spending. The entire economy can only thrive if the middle class is thriving.

Correct, productivity has increased, but not by people--by machines.

The number one job killer in industry today is automation. Even McDonald's restaurants are turning to automation to cut down on labor. Machines don't have one shift, they work 24/7 with little supervision. Machines don't demand higher wages and you don't have to provide a machine with medical benefits. You just maintain the thing once in a while and repair it when it breaks down from time to time.

Yeah sure automation plays a role, but it's stupid to think that's the sole factor for the increase in productivity. People are still in the workforce you know that right? The economy still depends on human workers regardless of automation. We are talking about a rate that's grown 100%.

I guess I can't convince you of anything, but perhaps an economist might. This is an excerpt from Dr. Walter Williams. It's a bit dated (which makes it even better) and here's what he wrote:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

Ok so he's saying automation is contributing to productivity? No shit. I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean human workers haven't played a substantial role in the increase of productivity. By your logic, low level jobs for humans wouldn't exist at all now would they?

I think you should read it again.

What he is saying is that while job loss went up--production went up. It's evident that the output of goods are due to automation and not man. It's not a contributing factor, it's the main factor.

And yes, as we progress down this road, it's only a matter of time until human labor is no longer needed in manufacturing. I work with manufacturing and I see it all the time.

But it's not just manufacturing. For instance, I went to see my doctor a few months ago. I went to the desk that I always go to to check in. I was stunned to see that nobody was behind the desk and that all the lights were off.

From the waiting room, a woman came by to escort me to their new kiosks. Now you have to check yourself in. The Cleveland Clinic got rid of the humans.

I don't know about you, but my local grocery store is opening up more self-serve checkouts and less cashier lines. They are trying to train their customers to depend on those checkouts to eliminate cashier jobs. Sure, you can still go to the cashier lines, but like self-serve gasoline pumps, it's only a matter of time before they are all self-serve.

You're just making your own interpretation from what that guy is saying. It's not like he was talking about the productivity increase in general. Think about it man. You see human workers involved in every industry. Automation or not, people have contributed to the rise in productivity.

 

[Billy000]

Do you even know what you're trying to say? Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Of course.

Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Obviously. Glad we're on the same page.

If a rich business owner invests $1,000,000 on equipment to double a worker's productivity, does that mean the worker should get double the salary?

No it does not. They do need an increase in pay though. Nationwide for decades wages have been flat, cost of living is up, and so is productivity. Don't you think that's a problem?

No it does not.

You feeling okay? You're making sense.

They do need an increase in pay though.

How much?

Nationwide for decades wages have been flat

You need to be a lot more specific than that.

Because wages have been flat all across the board, the government must step in and raise the minimum wage. It should have been raised years ago, but to start it should be at least $12 per hour. When the cost of living is considered, the mimimum wage should be $23 per hour. Obviously that would be too big of a jump. That's why we must start small at 12 and hopefully go up in the coming years.

MY goodness you guys are so stupid!
How many people work at "minimum wage" should be your first question!
ANSWER!!!
Of the 3.5 million working at minimum wage:
50.6% or 1,797,000 were mostly employed teenagers age 16 to 24 years
Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

NOW how many of those people working at minimum wage under age 24 have NO qualifications except they learn how to get to work often and on time!
That's all they learn and that's the start of their working experience!
BUT you f...king idiots are going to KILL that because YOU don't comprehend the economics!
$15.00 hour makes it NOW more worthwhile to buy robots to replace these young kids!
But you idiots don't use any of the internet to learn. You spout stupidity about "minimum wage" and yet have NO idea that less then 4% of the working force get paid minimum wage!
All you are doing is putting more people out of work!

Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants
The industry could be ready for another jolt as a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour nears in the District and as other campaigns to boost wages gain traction around the country. About 30 percent of the restaurant industry’s costs come from salaries, so burger-flipping robots — or at least super-fast ovens that expedite the process — become that much more cost-competitive if the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is doubled.

Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants

You know what I find hilarious about you? You and I have had this conversation over and over but either you forget what I said, or you pretend I've never said it. Which is it?

IF THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE WAS RAISED HIGH ENOUGH, AS IN 10-12 PER HOUR, 10s OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WOULD SEE AN INCREASE IN THEIR WAGES BECAUSE OF HOW MANY MAKE LESS THAN THAT WAGE.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, productivity has increased, but not by people--by machines.

The number one job killer in industry today is automation. Even McDonald's restaurants are turning to automation to cut down on labor. Machines don't have one shift, they work 24/7 with little supervision. Machines don't demand higher wages and you don't have to provide a machine with medical benefits. You just maintain the thing once in a while and repair it when it breaks down from time to time.

Yeah sure automation plays a role, but it's stupid to think that's the sole factor for the increase in productivity. People are still in the workforce you know that right? The economy still depends on human workers regardless of automation. We are talking about a rate that's grown 100%.

I guess I can't convince you of anything, but perhaps an economist might. This is an excerpt from Dr. Walter Williams. It's a bit dated (which makes it even better) and here's what he wrote:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

Ok so he's saying automation is contributing to productivity? No shit. I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean human workers haven't played a substantial role in the increase of productivity. By your logic, low level jobs for humans wouldn't exist at all now would they?

I think you should read it again.

What he is saying is that while job loss went up--production went up. It's evident that the output of goods are due to automation and not man. It's not a contributing factor, it's the main factor.

And yes, as we progress down this road, it's only a matter of time until human labor is no longer needed in manufacturing. I work with manufacturing and I see it all the time.

But it's not just manufacturing. For instance, I went to see my doctor a few months ago. I went to the desk that I always go to to check in. I was stunned to see that nobody was behind the desk and that all the lights were off.

From the waiting room, a woman came by to escort me to their new kiosks. Now you have to check yourself in. The Cleveland Clinic got rid of the humans.

I don't know about you, but my local grocery store is opening up more self-serve checkouts and less cashier lines. They are trying to train their customers to depend on those checkouts to eliminate cashier jobs. Sure, you can still go to the cashier lines, but like self-serve gasoline pumps, it's only a matter of time before they are all self-serve.

You're just making your own interpretation from what that guy is saying. It's not like he was talking about the productivity increase in general. Think about it man. You see human workers involved in every industry. Automation or not, people have contributed to the rise in productivity.

That's exactly what he was talking about. Again:

According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today.

So if we have less and less jobs, but more manufacturing output, of course it's due to machines and not labor.

This is just something we are going to have to deal with. I don't know how, but we can't stop it. Today, automaton is even cheaper than when this piece was written. Increasing the cost of labor only speeds this process up. That's why forced minimum wage increases is a bad idea.

 

[Billy000]

Yeah sure automation plays a role, but it's stupid to think that's the sole factor for the increase in productivity. People are still in the workforce you know that right? The economy still depends on human workers regardless of automation. We are talking about a rate that's grown 100%.

I guess I can't convince you of anything, but perhaps an economist might. This is an excerpt from Dr. Walter Williams. It's a bit dated (which makes it even better) and here's what he wrote:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

Ok so he's saying automation is contributing to productivity? No shit. I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean human workers haven't played a substantial role in the increase of productivity. By your logic, low level jobs for humans wouldn't exist at all now would they?

I think you should read it again.

What he is saying is that while job loss went up--production went up. It's evident that the output of goods are due to automation and not man. It's not a contributing factor, it's the main factor.

And yes, as we progress down this road, it's only a matter of time until human labor is no longer needed in manufacturing. I work with manufacturing and I see it all the time.

But it's not just manufacturing. For instance, I went to see my doctor a few months ago. I went to the desk that I always go to to check in. I was stunned to see that nobody was behind the desk and that all the lights were off.

From the waiting room, a woman came by to escort me to their new kiosks. Now you have to check yourself in. The Cleveland Clinic got rid of the humans.

I don't know about you, but my local grocery store is opening up more self-serve checkouts and less cashier lines. They are trying to train their customers to depend on those checkouts to eliminate cashier jobs. Sure, you can still go to the cashier lines, but like self-serve gasoline pumps, it's only a matter of time before they are all self-serve.

You're just making your own interpretation from what that guy is saying. It's not like he was talking about the productivity increase in general. Think about it man. You see human workers involved in every industry. Automation or not, people have contributed to the rise in productivity.

That's exactly what he was talking about. Again:

According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today.

So if we have less and less jobs, but more manufacturing output, of course it's due to machines and not labor.

This is just something we are going to have to deal with. I don't know how, but we can't stop it. Today, automaton is even cheaper than when this piece was written. Increasing the cost of labor only speeds this process up. That's why forced minimum wage increases is a bad idea.

Okay but you're forgetting that productivity goes beyond just manufacturing. The idea of productivity in the economy is not limited to manufacturing. Burger flipping for example, by definition, is productivity.

 

[Care4all]

Do you even know what you're trying to say? Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Do you even know what you're trying to say?

Of course.

Absolutely nothing I have said has anything to do with poor people investing more money. Obviously they aren't.

Obviously. Glad we're on the same page.

If a rich business owner invests $1,000,000 on equipment to double a worker's productivity, does that mean the worker should get double the salary?

No it does not. They do need an increase in pay though. Nationwide for decades wages have been flat, cost of living is up, and so is productivity. Don't you think that's a problem?

No it does not.

You feeling okay? You're making sense.

They do need an increase in pay though.

How much?

Nationwide for decades wages have been flat

You need to be a lot more specific than that.

Because wages have been flat all across the board, the government must step in and raise the minimum wage. It should have been raised years ago, but to start it should be at least $12 per hour. When the cost of living is considered, the mimimum wage should be $23 per hour. Obviously that would be too big of a jump. That's why we must start small at 12 and hopefully go up in the coming years.

MY goodness you guys are so stupid!
How many people work at "minimum wage" should be your first question!
ANSWER!!!
Of the 3.5 million working at minimum wage:
50.6% or 1,797,000 were mostly employed teenagers age 16 to 24 years
Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

NOW how many of those people working at minimum wage under age 24 have NO qualifications except they learn how to get to work often and on time!
That's all they learn and that's the start of their working experience!
BUT you f...king idiots are going to KILL that because YOU don't comprehend the economics!
$15.00 hour makes it NOW more worthwhile to buy robots to replace these young kids!
But you idiots don't use any of the internet to learn. You spout stupidity about "minimum wage" and yet have NO idea that less then 4% of the working force get paid minimum wage!
All you are doing is putting more people out of work!

Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants
The industry could be ready for another jolt as a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour nears in the District and as other campaigns to boost wages gain traction around the country. About 30 percent of the restaurant industry’s costs come from salaries, so burger-flipping robots — or at least super-fast ovens that expedite the process — become that much more cost-competitive if the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is doubled.

Minimum-wage offensive could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants

50.6% or 1,797,000 were mostly employed teenagers age 16 to 24 years

SINCE WHEN were 20 year old, 21 year old 22 yr old 23 yr old and 24 year old TEENAGERS???

 

[sonic]

Pretty illuminating. Income inequality based on hard work and risk taking should actually be celebrated. Income inequality due to corrupt people using their money and influence to create an extremely uneven playing field is something we should all join together to fight. Bernie is absolutely correct on that point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess I can't convince you of anything, but perhaps an economist might. This is an excerpt from Dr. Walter Williams. It's a bit dated (which makes it even better) and here's what he wrote:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

Ok so he's saying automation is contributing to productivity? No shit. I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean human workers haven't played a substantial role in the increase of productivity. By your logic, low level jobs for humans wouldn't exist at all now would they?

I think you should read it again.

What he is saying is that while job loss went up--production went up. It's evident that the output of goods are due to automation and not man. It's not a contributing factor, it's the main factor.

And yes, as we progress down this road, it's only a matter of time until human labor is no longer needed in manufacturing. I work with manufacturing and I see it all the time.

But it's not just manufacturing. For instance, I went to see my doctor a few months ago. I went to the desk that I always go to to check in. I was stunned to see that nobody was behind the desk and that all the lights were off.

From the waiting room, a woman came by to escort me to their new kiosks. Now you have to check yourself in. The Cleveland Clinic got rid of the humans.

I don't know about you, but my local grocery store is opening up more self-serve checkouts and less cashier lines. They are trying to train their customers to depend on those checkouts to eliminate cashier jobs. Sure, you can still go to the cashier lines, but like self-serve gasoline pumps, it's only a matter of time before they are all self-serve.

You're just making your own interpretation from what that guy is saying. It's not like he was talking about the productivity increase in general. Think about it man. You see human workers involved in every industry. Automation or not, people have contributed to the rise in productivity.

That's exactly what he was talking about. Again:

According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today.

So if we have less and less jobs, but more manufacturing output, of course it's due to machines and not labor.

This is just something we are going to have to deal with. I don't know how, but we can't stop it. Today, automaton is even cheaper than when this piece was written. Increasing the cost of labor only speeds this process up. That's why forced minimum wage increases is a bad idea.

Okay but you're forgetting that productivity goes beyond just manufacturing. The idea of productivity in the economy is not limited to manufacturing. Burger flipping for example, by definition, is productivity.

Yes it is, but it's also a low paying job. And if it ever gets to be a better paying job, restaurants will invest in automation to replace that burger flipper like McDonald's is doing right now.

The point is that anybody fantasizing about the 70's and big union days are just dreaming. It's never coming back. Monkey jobs have already been replaced by machines and foreign entities.

The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can work on figuring out how people are going to make a living. Yes, humans will always play a part, but as we go down that road, less and less humans will be needed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pretty illuminating. Income inequality based on hard work and risk taking should actually be celebrated. Income inequality due to corrupt people using their money and influence to create an extremely uneven playing field is something we should all join together to fight. Bernie is absolutely correct on that point.

So what could Bernie or anybody else do to stop it?