Obama blames the rise of the machines for high unemployment.

[ShackledNation]

Do you see your logical flaw? Because the plow and horse made the job easier less workers were needed to do the same job. It had the same effect as your modern day example. Less are needed to do the same job. That frees up resources to grow and expand the economy everywhere else. The argument against technology is the argument that efficiency hurts economic growth. That defies all common sense and historical reality.

during the horse and plow days the farmer and his wife and kids did all the work on their farms themselves......as the Tractor came into being it made his job easier and now he was able to do more land ........and more crops growing on more land he may have had to hire more people.....etc etc.....in some Industries....Automation has cut down the number of workers that used to work there.....is all im pointing out.....which is what this thread has evolved into......"do machines replace people or not?".....im all for Technology....im not against it......

And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?

 

[Steelplate]

Do you see your logical flaw? Because the plow and horse made the job easier less workers were needed to do the same job. It had the same effect as your modern day example. Less are needed to do the same job. That frees up resources to grow and expand the economy everywhere else. The argument against technology is the argument that efficiency hurts economic growth. That defies all common sense and historical reality.

during the horse and plow days the farmer and his wife and kids did all the work on their farms themselves......as the Tractor came into being it made his job easier and now he was able to do more land ........and more crops growing on more land he may have had to hire more people.....etc etc.....in some Industries....Automation has cut down the number of workers that used to work there.....is all im pointing out.....which is what this thread has evolved into......"do machines replace people or not?".....im all for Technology....im not against it......

And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?

No... you will have more people without jobs. That is a given. What' not a given is that there will be other jobs(especially family sustaining jobs) out there. Throw in the trend of outsourcing and you have a severe job deficit with a growing population. All in the name of making a small group of people VERY RICH at the expense of everyone else. Why do you guys vote for a downward spiral that funnels money upward? It's counter intuitive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you see your logical flaw? Because the plow and horse made the job easier less workers were needed to do the same job. It had the same effect as your modern day example. Less are needed to do the same job. That frees up resources to grow and expand the economy everywhere else. The argument against technology is the argument that efficiency hurts economic growth. That defies all common sense and historical reality.

during the horse and plow days the farmer and his wife and kids did all the work on their farms themselves......as the Tractor came into being it made his job easier and now he was able to do more land ........and more crops growing on more land he may have had to hire more people.....etc etc.....in some Industries....Automation has cut down the number of workers that used to work there.....is all im pointing out.....which is what this thread has evolved into......"do machines replace people or not?".....im all for Technology....im not against it......

And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?

He not only created more jobs, those jobs generally pay better than he would. Or do you think tractors grow on trees?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

during the horse and plow days the farmer and his wife and kids did all the work on their farms themselves......as the Tractor came into being it made his job easier and now he was able to do more land ........and more crops growing on more land he may have had to hire more people.....etc etc.....in some Industries....Automation has cut down the number of workers that used to work there.....is all im pointing out.....which is what this thread has evolved into......"do machines replace people or not?".....im all for Technology....im not against it......

And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?

No... you will have more people without jobs. That is a given. What' not a given is that there will be other jobs(especially family sustaining jobs) out there. Throw in the trend of outsourcing and you have a severe job deficit with a growing population. All in the name of making a small group of people VERY RICH at the expense of everyone else. Why do you guys vote for a downward spiral that funnels money upward? It's counter intuitive.

What is your solution, send everyone back to the stone age?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I blame his Teleprompter Machine. For telling him to say such stupid shit. SHEESH!

 

[ShackledNation]

during the horse and plow days the farmer and his wife and kids did all the work on their farms themselves......as the Tractor came into being it made his job easier and now he was able to do more land ........and more crops growing on more land he may have had to hire more people.....etc etc.....in some Industries....Automation has cut down the number of workers that used to work there.....is all im pointing out.....which is what this thread has evolved into......"do machines replace people or not?".....im all for Technology....im not against it......

And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?

No... you will have more people without jobs. That is a given. What' not a given is that there will be other jobs(especially family sustaining jobs) out there. Throw in the trend of outsourcing and you have a severe job deficit with a growing population. All in the name of making a small group of people VERY RICH at the expense of everyone else. Why do you guys vote for a downward spiral that funnels money upward? It's counter intuitive.

Then if that is what you believe, let me restate my earlier argument. Given the technological advances of the 20th century, half the population should be unemployed. Outsourcing has increased, and technology has boomed. Why is there not significant perpetual unemployment if technological advances and outsourcing create net job loss?

You are operating on the fallacy of looking at the effects of a policy on one group and ignoring everyone else. Yes, the work machines do will cause human workers to be displaced. But people have to make the machines. Not only that, because machines are cheaper than workers, businesses will be able to sell their products at a cheaper and more competitive price. This means that everyone in the economy will get that good cheaper. They will have more money left over to demand other goods. That demand will result in increased production and more employment in many other industries. You just can't trace these industries exactly.

Let us take this example. A company using human workers make fur coats that cost $40 each. With machines, they can cut the price to attract more buyers and sell the coats for $20 each. Say that 10 million Americans buy fur coats. Rather than spend 400 million on the coats, they spend 200 million, and have 200 million left over. That additional $200 million will be spent and invested in other parts of the economy, creating growth and employment in whatever sectors it ends up in.

Empirically, the evidence does not show technology creates net unemployment. Logically, it makes no sense to think so. In conclusion, technology changing the structure of production, but does not result in long term increases in unemployment.

 

[Rozman]

Wow who would have thunk,Obama blames something or someone else for his shortcomings.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The President is full of shit! Obama is still trying to scapegoat his failure.

The plow & horse did not create permanent unemployment for farmers with hoes. The Steam Shovel did not do the same to ditch diggers & miners. There have been countless innovations throughout history that replace human labor. New jobs are always created by the advancements in lifestyles that outpaced the ones lost by labor replacing machine. If anything we have to many overeducated government dependent sissy's & to few blue collar workers to build oil pipelines & oil rigs, or operate drilling & mining equipment.

The only thing this country lacks is leadership.

The plow & horse did not create permanent unemployment for farmers with hoes


thats because the farmer usually did the work himself.....the the plow and horse just made his job easier.....same with the Tractor......but some machines have replaced people were there used to be hundreds working that job.....now there are just those feeding the machine and maintaining it....


The only thing this country lacks is leadership

i have been saying this quite often....

Technology has not made it possible for fewer and fewer farmers to produce more and more farm product?

good one.

i dont think thats what i said ....but since its coming from you....im not surprised....your good at twisting things.....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Honestly guys this thread has nothing to do with how land was farmed in the early 1900's. We have real issues and this discussion has gotten so misguided and trivial that we look as dumb as Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

More rightwing misdirection

Obama is not advocating elimination of ATMs or airport kiosks. he only points to them as an example of where technology advancements have eliminated jobs previously done by people.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The current unemployment rate in the U.S. for someone with a only a H.S. diploma is 9.5%

The current unemployment rate for someone with at least a bachelor's degree is 4.5%.

And yet, do Republicans/conservatives want to invest in Education?

Generally...

...No.

yet most of the unemployment checks i deliver are to college grads with 4 year degrees or better who tell me the job market for them sucks....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Do you see your logical flaw? Because the plow and horse made the job easier less workers were needed to do the same job. It had the same effect as your modern day example. Less are needed to do the same job. That frees up resources to grow and expand the economy everywhere else. The argument against technology is the argument that efficiency hurts economic growth. That defies all common sense and historical reality.

during the horse and plow days the farmer and his wife and kids did all the work on their farms themselves......as the Tractor came into being it made his job easier and now he was able to do more land ........and more crops growing on more land he may have had to hire more people.....etc etc.....in some Industries....Automation has cut down the number of workers that used to work there.....is all im pointing out.....which is what this thread has evolved into......"do machines replace people or not?".....im all for Technology....im not against it......

And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?

sure....but my whole thing was that Automation in certain industries is replacing workers,so those jobs no longer exist.....others it may help....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

More rightwing misdirection

Obama is not advocating elimination of ATMs or airport kiosks. he only points to them as an example of where technology advancements have eliminated jobs previously done by people.

No one ever said he called for the end of the machines. Way to completely miss the point. And those jobs that were eliminated suddenly only happened on his watch despite the machines being around for decades? And by the way for every atm put on the street corner 4 jobs are created. Nice job exposing your stupidity and lack of economic understanding. Are you sure your name isn't Obama?

 

[rightwinger]

More rightwing misdirection

Obama is not advocating elimination of ATMs or airport kiosks. he only points to them as an example of where technology advancements have eliminated jobs previously done by people.

No one ever said he called for the end of the machines. Way to completely miss the point. And those jobs that were eliminated suddenly only happened on his watch despite the machines being around for decades? And by the way for every atm put on the street corner 4 jobs are created. Nice job exposing your stupidity and lack of economic understanding. Are you sure your name isn't Obama?

Another clueless conservative. Welcome to the board, we were running short

Obama was using ATMs as an example of how technology eliminates jobs formerly held by people. He is far from a Ludite. he was merely making an analogy

 

[Steelplate]

Where did I meet you half way? Your kidding right? Are you blind or just lacking reading comprehension? I'll placate you and highlight a few but I suggest instead of just stating your view then blindly disregarding mine, actually read it. This just proves my point that you didn't actually want to debate but rather just make your points mixed with thinly veiled insults.

Here ya go:

) I don't disagree that not everyone can lead and some must follow. And yes I do agree that the lobbying system is corrupt as are many of the politicians. But that doesn't leave us powerless



As far as your corporate welfare stance we agree. Unfortunately ending ethanol subsidies just failed to pass. I have yet to see how my congressmen voted but I will, and emails will be sent accordingly.


You can't preach to me about the needs of the disabled as my step-daughter has CP. I whole heartedly agree with a full safety net for those that can't take care of themselves. She had around 9 different spine, leg, knee, and neck surgeries before I met her mother. All paid for by uncle Sam.


Now after your done eating your words ill be waiting for a "real" response to our discussion.

Ok.... Wow... you are a hothead. I guess I'm on your ignore list now... sorry for missing your post... and if you choose to look back in the posts... I was responding to a person named avatar... and you defended him, which is fine... you can defend anyone you want to... but unfortunately, I screwed up and thought you were avatar when I responded with the "Where have you met me half way" post.

So... at the risk of you not seeing this because I am now on your ignore list(which really doesn't bother me all that much), I will answer you.

What do you propose to do with those people who cannot lead? Are they screwed? Do they only deserve a life of poverty and want, or are they our fellow citizens that deserve a decent life too?

Ethanol subsidies? Ok... that is one of MANY ways our Government panders to the wealthy... but some of those people are not wealthy... they are mom and pop farmers trying to compete against full scale agribusiness. How about we end subsidies for Agribusiness, but keep them for family farms?

I can preach to you about the needs of the disabled. I have worked in the field since Reagan was in office and I have seen our resources dwindle and the calls for privatization rise. I have also seen the results of the trend. Private sector "Group Homes" are now what State Institutions Used to be in the 70's. They are staffed by minimum wage, unskilled people doing a job that requires much more training than these "for profit" entities are willing to provide. Plus, who gives a shit if you lose a minimum wage job? Lose a state job with benefits... that's a different story. You are going to tow the line a hell of a lot better.

Most of our Homeless problem is mentally ill people with no place to go. Reagan nearly killed Federal Funding to Mental Health Facilities... that put them on the street.

I am very sorry about your sister. But just because your sister is disabled does not make you an expert on what is happening around you.

Haha Thankfully I hadn't even had a chance to get to the ignore feature yet. Sounds like reading comprehension may in fact be in order if you were confused who you were talking too. Anyways onto the topic.

I think I was clear but if not let me reiterate my position. I'm against "ALL" corporate welfare. The free market should determine what is successful and what isn't.
As far as those that can't lead there are temporary safety nets available to them to help them until they rebound. ie food stamps, unemployment checks, Financial aid for families with children, etc. Other than that its not the govts job to find them employment.

I was a ward of the state from the age of 7 and I basically grew up in the system you work in. And as I clearly stated I have no problem with programs for those that can't help themselves. As far as funding goes, its kinda hard to hope for more when Obama spent everything we had and then some on such life changing programs as cash for clunkers and 2 billion for Egypt to help create jobs. Your party has had control of the purse strings for quite some time so to blame the right for lack of funding when you had control of the bank account for so long is disengiuness at best.
It was my step-daughter with CP (reading comprehension?)

The problem is... the market isn't really free when big corporations have such a huge head start from previous pandering. You can't just wipe the slate clean and expect new growth to flourish when the "haves" of the business community already have virtual monopolistic entities. Those huge conglomerates need broken up. It's kind of like clear cutting a forest to allow for new growth.

I'm not blaming the "right" alone... I am blaming Politics. Both sides are beholden to larger entities than the general citizenry. If you think that those policies should continue because it happens to benefit Right Wing candidates more at this point in time... I don't know what to tell you. But the simple truth is... to be a Candidate... you need Money... Lots of it. Corporations have lots of money... but they want something in return for that money.... influence buying and favorable legislation. This is where America has taken a turn for the worse over the last 30 years or so.

We need to turn America back to a "We the People" nation, rather than a "We the people with the most money". Because our middle class is collapsing and our poor are growing because of this crazy methodology. Both sides are to blame.

Look logically(not emotionally) at the Health Care Law. With our current situation...Spending 1st... quality... 30-something... A single payer system was the way to go... At the very least.. having a Public OPTION would have added teeth to the Health Care law.

It would have given small business a huge break to compete with the big boys in terms of cost effectiveness. Let's suppose you are a young man... just starting out with a wife and a kid on the way.... You have two job offers(to make it simple). One is with a huge conglomerate where you are just an anonymous employee that pays benefits... and the other is with a small company that has decent potential... but can't afford to pay benefits... who are you going to go with? Let's take it another route... you are an employee of the Conglomerate.. but you absolutely hate your job... but they pay you pretty well and they supply you with Health Care at a minimal cost. Some co-worker that is just as sick of the BS as you says... let's start a business of our own! You'd need to hire ohhh.. let's say 50 people to get it off the ground, but you can't get them because they need Health insurance for their families and you can't provide that.

THAT is what the Health Care Law was supposed to do. Give Small business a tool to compete... but the Corporate Sponsored Media and their multi-billion dollar marketing campaign for the status quo suckered so many people into the "Socialism" thing that the law never got the teeth that it needed.

As far as the mistake of your STEP DAUGHTER... sorry about that... but the point still remains.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More rightwing misdirection

Obama is not advocating elimination of ATMs or airport kiosks. he only points to them as an example of where technology advancements have eliminated jobs previously done by people.

And I ask again, so what?

 

[Steelplate]

And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?

No... you will have more people without jobs. That is a given. What' not a given is that there will be other jobs(especially family sustaining jobs) out there. Throw in the trend of outsourcing and you have a severe job deficit with a growing population. All in the name of making a small group of people VERY RICH at the expense of everyone else. Why do you guys vote for a downward spiral that funnels money upward? It's counter intuitive.

What is your solution, send everyone back to the stone age?

Not at all... My solution is to quit thinking that Billionaires deserve all they can get and everyday people should just be happy they have a job... even one that don't even pay for their essentials.

 

[xsited1]

Obama blames the rise of the machines for high unemployment.

The reason Obama's speeches have to be scripted is because left on his own he'll spew crap that proves he's completely out of touch with the real world. Turn the teleprompter off and he's a complete idiot.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I haven't listened to the comments but coming from Fox i would expect nothing but BS.

 

[blu]

I think this is great. once all the people who can only perform manual labor die off, then the rest of us can progress