So you want better paying jobs?

[Correll]

I disagree that you need to motivate those at the bottom.

You craft policy that leads to job creation and higher wages, people will take them and move up.

People don't "do" unless motivated.

Fact of Life, bro.

Most people at the bottom are already motivated to have more, it is just difficult for them to do so.

Give them access to more and better jobs, and you will see them move.

 

[Correll]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

You have an excellent grasp of how to create higher paying jobs in America, in a free market capitalist society. Everything you stated is a perfectly reasonable argument, and I know that I open myself up for quite a bit of criticism, but I respectfully ask that you hear me out.

The model you suggest works in a world where production jobs are needed. I've worked in production, making American made products and I understand just how hard a time companies have it here competing with foreign production for exactly the reasons you stated.

But the problem, the real source of today's jobs crisis and the falling value of the American worker is technological in nature, let me explain.

There is a battery plant near my home that competes quite well with foreign battery plants, their workers enjoy good wages and benefits, above average for their field in fact. This battery plant produces batteries that are used all of the world, the demand is quite high. Their production rate puts to shame competing factories around the world. The problem with this plant in a jobs sense however, is there are only 6 employees.

Shifts of 2 engineers at a time run the entire plant from their offices with ipads. This plant is fully automated. Where most of their competitors around the world employ hundreds, they have a much, much lower labor cost. The initial investment in this plant was staggering over 4 times the cost of building a normal factory, but as prices fall other companies are struggling to start mimicking this business model.

In my plant, which is a bit more rundown, and uses technology from the 70s and 80s, automation has been introduced in certain processes that was able to reduce the labor force by about a hundred or so.

I can already hear your argument, so allow me to make it for you. While these technologies may take jobs in one sense, they create them in another, mechanics, engineers, software technicians, and you would be right. But of those hundred jobs lost only about 8 were created.

Despite these advances my plant still continues to struggle, we do still employ a sizeable work force, and our pay isn't terrible. We make foam and plastic products. A simple product, but still.

Recently, there has been cause for worry as a few of our smaller customers began using 3-D printing technology to make the same products we make more effienctly, and without the need for transport costs. Well, that's fine, 3-D printers aren't that great yet and on a mass scale they can't handle production like we can.

They are catching up though. We employ throughout the country at various plants some 15,000 employees. Now, this as I said is a simple product to make, from an engineering standpoint, and I can already here the rallying cry that, well, get a job for the 3-D printer company then.

Those 3-D printer companies, as an advanced technology already understands that this old worker production is ineffective are far too expensive. I mean, the third world workers making a dollar a day and a bowl of rice can even compete, no, those companies are investing in automated production. And they already have the 6 workers they want.

I went to a restaurant with my wife the other night, our waiter was a tablet system that was wired to the table. Interesting, but no waiters to be found, just a couple cooks andan overworked server.

Japan has robot cooks now, robots handling their food, Americans may be more squeamish about this, and right now its an oddity. But when it starts to make better business sense what do you think companies that own restaraunts will do?

The factories that produce these robots, you guessed it, automated. Google used to offer a prize only ten years ago to any group that could build a self driving car though the desert. They all got lost, it was pretty funny. Last year, they navigated a busy city in full traffic. It may take a while for laws of the road to allow such a thing, but companies would lobby hard, could you imagine? Replace cross country truck drivers with self driving trucks. They don't get tired, they don't get paid, they don't complain or quit or need health insurance.

Again, you could put laws in place to protect American jobs, I see truckers picketing now "no robots on our roads". But when it makes business sense, what are we going to do?

Do you deny you have seen more automatic services than their has been? And as companies start to want these things, market forces at work, they become more affordable. More available to all manner of business, and these machines get smarter year after year, just look at how far self driving cars have come in a decade.

How do you create good paying jobs ten years from now? Fifteen? Should we be preparing now? How? Your model of jobs worked in the 70s and 80s. But we are not living in the 70's and 80's. I would like to hear your solution to this dilemma. You seem like a level headed person, and I hope you don't just dismiss this off hand. I look forward to your response

Thank you for that well-thought out post, you made some outstanding points. I don't know that I have an answer for this dilemma, however it's not something unique to free market capitalism. You have to remember that free market capitalism ushered in the Industrial Revolution. We've been dealing with advancement in technology ever since.

One of the "propagandist" arguments is this graphic they show where the productivity of the average worker has risen dramatically high while his wages have remained dramatically low. But what they fail to comprehend is the advancement of technology which increases production. We're able to be more productive due to advanced technology and a commitment from capitalists to invest in said technology for the future.

A friend of mine was an old school photographer who knew all about darkrooms and film processing... he had a job with a newspaper as their photographer for many years. Well.. computers came along and digital photography, and the newspaper began to hire reporters who were trained in photojournalism and pretty soon, he found that his talents were obsolete. So he retrained himself in graphic design and photoshop and again, got a decent job with a commercial art house... well, again... technology changed and now anyone with an iPhone can do what he was doing. They make a template or an app... *poof* another career bites the dust.

Buggy whip makers had to find new jobs when the automobiles came along. Ice houses had to close down when refrigerators came along. These are all things that happen in a free market capitalist system. What happens is, people adapt with the times. Life goes on.

I would say that we are definitely moving in to an era where technical skills will be very important. You are going to need to know how to fix robots... how to program automated machines... how to troubleshoot problems with networks, etc. Those skills are going to require trained people who know what they are doing because if the automated plant goes down, it's big bucks. So we may see fewer actual jobs in the future but they will require a higher level of skill which will be in demand. This means higher wages.

I would certainly agree that the technical jobs will be better paying. I left my factory job a while ago to pursue a bachelors in chemical engineering and possibly a masters in nanoscience, exactly for the reasons you stated. But, and I say this knowing you likely lean politically conservative, how do we as a nation handle what may be, let's say 100 million technical jobs (and I do feel I'm b

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

You have an excellent grasp of how to create higher paying jobs in America, in a free market capitalist society. Everything you stated is a perfectly reasonable argument, and I know that I open myself up for quite a bit of criticism, but I respectfully ask that you hear me out.

The model you suggest works in a world where production jobs are needed. I've worked in production, making American made products and I understand just how hard a time companies have it here competing with foreign production for exactly the reasons you stated.

But the problem, the real source of today's jobs crisis and the falling value of the American worker is technological in nature, let me explain.

There is a battery plant near my home that competes quite well with foreign battery plants, their workers enjoy good wages and benefits, above average for their field in fact. This battery plant produces batteries that are used all of the world, the demand is quite high. Their production rate puts to shame competing factories around the world. The problem with this plant in a jobs sense however, is there are only 6 employees.

Shifts of 2 engineers at a time run the entire plant from their offices with ipads. This plant is fully automated. Where most of their competitors around the world employ hundreds, they have a much, much lower labor cost. The initial investment in this plant was staggering over 4 times the cost of building a normal factory, but as prices fall other companies are struggling to start mimicking this business model.

In my plant, which is a bit more rundown, and uses technology from the 70s and 80s, automation has been introduced in certain processes that was able to reduce the labor force by about a hundred or so.

I can already hear your argument, so allow me to make it for you. While these technologies may take jobs in one sense, they create them in another, mechanics, engineers, software technicians, and you would be right. But of those hundred jobs lost only about 8 were created.

Despite these advances my plant still continues to struggle, we do still employ a sizeable work force, and our pay isn't terrible. We make foam and plastic products. A simple product, but still.

Recently, there has been cause for worry as a few of our smaller customers began using 3-D printing technology to make the same products we make more effienctly, and without the need for transport costs. Well, that's fine, 3-D printers aren't that great yet and on a mass scale they can't handle production like we can.

They are catching up though. We employ throughout the country at various plants some 15,000 employees. Now, this as I said is a simple product to make, from an engineering standpoint, and I can already here the rallying cry that, well, get a job for the 3-D printer company then.

Those 3-D printer companies, as an advanced technology already understands that this old worker production is ineffective are far too expensive. I mean, the third world workers making a dollar a day and a bowl of rice can even compete, no, those companies are investing in automated production. And they already have the 6 workers they want.

I went to a restaurant with my wife the other night, our waiter was a tablet system that was wired to the table. Interesting, but no waiters to be found, just a couple cooks andan overworked server.

Japan has robot cooks now, robots handling their food, Americans may be more squeamish about this, and right now its an oddity. But when it starts to make better business sense what do you think companies that own restaraunts will do?

The factories that produce these robots, you guessed it, automated. Google used to offer a prize only ten years ago to any group that could build a self driving car though the desert. They all got lost, it was pretty funny. Last year, they navigated a busy city in full traffic. It may take a while for laws of the road to allow such a thing, but companies would lobby hard, could you imagine? Replace cross country truck drivers with self driving trucks. They don't get tired, they don't get paid, they don't complain or quit or need health insurance.

Again, you could put laws in place to protect American jobs, I see truckers picketing now "no robots on our roads". But when it makes business sense, what are we going to do?

Do you deny you have seen more automatic services than their has been? And as companies start to want these things, market forces at work, they become more affordable. More available to all manner of business, and these machines get smarter year after year, just look at how far self driving cars have come in a decade.

How do you create good paying jobs ten years from now? Fifteen? Should we be preparing now? How? Your model of jobs worked in the 70s and 80s. But we are not living in the 70's and 80's. I would like to hear your solution to this dilemma. You seem like a level headed person, and I hope you don't just dismiss this off hand. I look forward to your response

Thank you for that well-thought out post, you made some outstanding points. I don't know that I have an answer for this dilemma, however it's not something unique to free market capitalism. You have to remember that free market capitalism ushered in the Industrial Revolution. We've been dealing with advancement in technology ever since.

One of the "propagandist" arguments is this graphic they show where the productivity of the average worker has risen dramatically high while his wages have remained dramatically low. But what they fail to comprehend is the advancement of technology which increases production. We're able to be more productive due to advanced technology and a commitment from capitalists to invest in said technology for the future.

A friend of mine was an old school photographer who knew all about darkrooms and film processing... he had a job with a newspaper as their photographer for many years. Well.. computers came along and digital photography, and the newspaper began to hire reporters who were trained in photojournalism and pretty soon, he found that his talents were obsolete. So he retrained himself in graphic design and photoshop and again, got a decent job with a commercial art house... well, again... technology changed and now anyone with an iPhone can do what he was doing. They make a template or an app... *poof* another career bites the dust.

Buggy whip makers had to find new jobs when the automobiles came along. Ice houses had to close down when refrigerators came along. These are all things that happen in a free market capitalist system. What happens is, people adapt with the times. Life goes on.

I would say that we are definitely moving in to an era where technical skills will be very important. You are going to need to know how to fix robots... how to program automated machines... how to troubleshoot problems with networks, etc. Those skills are going to require trained people who know what they are doing because if the automated plant goes down, it's big bucks. So we may see fewer actual jobs in the future but they will require a higher level of skill which will be in demand. This means higher wages.

I do understand that there will be a higher demand for more technical jobs. For this reason I left my position at my factory and am pursuing a bachelors in chemical engineering and possibly a masters in nanoscience. These jobs will pay well, and I hopped on that train like anyone should reading the writing on the wall.

I ask this particularly because you seem like an intelligent person, I can assume politically conservative (Forgive me if I am mistaken). If we end up with, let's say 100 million technical jobs here in America with a high rate of pay (upper middle class kind of pay). What do we do with over 100 million Americans who couldn't find work? Or who didn't understand to start training for a new career? I understand this is not a mutually exclusive problem for America, many third world countries I believe will be hit much harder than us, as our workers have started to shift already to more technical jobs.

But in a free capitalist society, how do we in good conscience handle this dilemma? I'm not asking for a well laid out solution, but perhaps to think about the problem. What should we do? How do we handle a population that no one needs to employ when many of us will be enjoying a greatly prosperous time?

Your concerns about ever increasing automation is valid, but is not what is driving wage stagnation at this point in time.

And even if we do end up where you point to, we would still want those automated factory jobs to be in the US.

 

[Boss]

I disagree that you need to motivate those at the bottom.

You craft policy that leads to job creation and higher wages, people will take them and move up.

Crafting policies is not what creates jobs. You've got to get off this idea that government can fix all problems. Government IS the problem. Private sector jobs are created when businesses expand or new ones emerge. We can do things to encourage that... mainly, get government out of the way. Offer tax incentives, etc. But... the capitalist must have a reason to expand. Government doesn't control that... consumers do.

And no, I don't care what you tell me... you are not going to ever motivate some at the bottom as long as you're providing a comfortable existence for them. Not gonna happen. The vast majority will turn their noses up at work in order to stay home and collect that check.

You have to motivate people. There is no other way to get there. I know that you don't believe that but it's true. We've been trying to bring up the bottom for 70 years by throwing a check at them every month, paying for their food, housing, medicine, every damn thing else... it does not work. Is the gap getting smaller between rich and poor? There's your answer. No motivation!

 

[Boss]

Most people at the bottom are already motivated to have more, it is just difficult for them to do so.

Give them access to more and better jobs, and you will see them move.

No they are NOT motivated, that is the problem. They have access to the same jobs as everyone does. There is not a problem with access... that's a cop out. You act like it's 1952 and we're keeping some people from getting certain jobs... not happening anymore, hasn't happened in many years.

More and better jobs are not going to magically appear because some politician in DC passes a bill. That's not what creates jobs in a free market capitalist system. You have to create an environment where free market capitalism can flourish... the problem is, we've been under siege for a decade by anti-capitalists who want to destroy the free market system.

 

[KissMy]

I would rather pay $200 bucks for a pair of levis made by an American worker, then the paper thin ones they sell today for $60 bucks.

The true cost of Made in the USA Levi s 178 GlobalPost

Texas jeans are manufactured in North Carolina, USA & sell here for $29. So there is no way Levi jeans really cost $178 to make here in the USA. Offshoring is all about avoiding taxes, increasing profits & turning Chinese into consumers to increase prices & profits.

Large corps like Apple & IBM are holding $Trillions offshore & borrowing that money here at near zero to pay it's shareholders here, betting that Republicans give them a "Tax Holiday" before interest rates rise punishing them for all that debt they accumulated to delay paying taxes.

 

[sealybobo]

I heard today the best way to raise wages is to go find a better job.

Did you believe that?

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor. Right now, there is more supply of labor than demand. The problem can't be fixed until that dynamic is changed... plain and simple.

We can certainly discuss all kinds of ways to get there... We can impose heavy import tariffs on foreign goods... that makes American products more competitive-- which will increase sales-- which will increase production-- which will increase jobs. We can cut corporate US tax making our market more attractive to foreign companies who would love to tap into it... creating more new jobs here. We can offer tax incentives for bringing foreign-held American wealth back to create new business-- thus, new jobs. And we can limit regulations and restrictions on American companies-- allowing them to expand easier-- create more jobs.

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor again. Whenever I can't find someone who wants to work for me at $7.50/hr... guess what I will do? That's right.. .I'll offer more!

I've been the employee negotiating with his employer when the employer could not find someone to replace me.

That was sweetness that I wish upon more of my fellow citizens.

Unfortunately not everyone is exceptional like you and I. Even I am replaceable and I am an amazing salesperson. I've worked with people and they are amazed that a company would ever let me go but I guess they do a cost analysis and decide they've milked me for all I'm worth and now that I've done all that marketing they can let me go and their administrative staff can handle all the orders that come in and they don't have to pay me the commission.

They say companies don't like to fire because of turnover costs but I know many companies where high turnover is their business model.

I like unions. Rather than you negotiating for yourself and you being the one person they can't do without, I like a union negotiating for all 500 employees. My way works. Works for the economy, workers and America. It just doesn't work for the corporation. Of course they want us making what Mexicans make because that would improve their bottom line. Corporations have never liked paying any of us Americans what they pay. Not even you, despite the fact that this company would go out of business if you left. LOL.

 

[sealybobo]

I heard today the best way to raise wages is to go find a better job.

Did you believe that?

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor. Right now, there is more supply of labor than demand. The problem can't be fixed until that dynamic is changed... plain and simple.

We can certainly discuss all kinds of ways to get there... We can impose heavy import tariffs on foreign goods... that makes American products more competitive-- which will increase sales-- which will increase production-- which will increase jobs. We can cut corporate US tax making our market more attractive to foreign companies who would love to tap into it... creating more new jobs here. We can offer tax incentives for bringing foreign-held American wealth back to create new business-- thus, new jobs. And we can limit regulations and restrictions on American companies-- allowing them to expand easier-- create more jobs.

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor again. Whenever I can't find someone who wants to work for me at $7.50/hr... guess what I will do? That's right.. .I'll offer more!

I heard today the best way to raise wages is to go find a better job.

Did you believe that?

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor. Right now, there is more supply of labor than demand. The problem can't be fixed until that dynamic is changed... plain and simple.

We can certainly discuss all kinds of ways to get there... We can impose heavy import tariffs on foreign goods... that makes American products more competitive-- which will increase sales-- which will increase production-- which will increase jobs. We can cut corporate US tax making our market more attractive to foreign companies who would love to tap into it... creating more new jobs here. We can offer tax incentives for bringing foreign-held American wealth back to create new business-- thus, new jobs. And we can limit regulations and restrictions on American companies-- allowing them to expand easier-- create more jobs.

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor again. Whenever I can't find someone who wants to work for me at $7.50/hr... guess what I will do? That's right.. .I'll offer more!

You will argue with me even when I'm trying to agree with you. I'm saying STUPID that instead of a socialist approach to raising wages, wages are going up because people are starting to leave their current jobs for better jobs. That's a good sign the economy is getting better.

And it is true. In the 1990's Taco bell was paying over $10 hr because they couldn't find good workers. There were too many better jobs out there. That brought wages up.

So when the economy gets better that forces employers to have to give raises for fear of that good employee leaving. And a lot of companies don't give a shit and let you go. So you have to jump ship. Sad but true. But I guess that's a better way to raise wages than unionize, right?

Every man for himself!

Planning to quit your job in 2014? According to a new survey fromCareerBuilder, you’re most likely jumping ship because you’re dissatisfied with advancement opportunities at you current company or you feel underemployed.

If you were planning to quit, what would it take to persuade you to stay? Better benefits? A bigger paycheck? More flexibility?

CareerBuilder found the answers.

A new survey shows that while 59% of workers are generally satisfied at work, one in five (21%) said they plan to change jobs this year or next. But it turns out employers may be able to retain those valuable workers by offering them what they want most.

In 2007 you couldn't jump ship because companies weren't hiring, they were letting people go. Bushanomics. And companies liked it because their profits went up but their labor costs stayed down.

 

[The sheeple sea]

I will say this one quick thing, and I hope you can forgive my ideological madness. If one day through the advance of technology we come to a time when production of goods is incredibly easy and cheap and millions of workers are not needed, there may come a time when we as a people provide basic amenities to anyone, regardless. A base standard of living if you will. I know this sounds inherently Marxist. People should still be rewarded for their ingenuity, jobs will still exist, but there should be no reason that housing, food, water and basics should not be provided. This sounds like the redistribution of wealth, and in a sense it may be, but wealth will be so plentiful, so available, when you can print products off a machine, energy advances to be cheaper, cleaner, THROUGH the engine of free enterprise, we may come to a place where the relative cost for providing basic human needs is so little, there's no reason not to do it. Those with ambition, who want more than the status quo will continue to innovate and mankind can focus on things other than just eking a living. Many of those economic principles you listed that failed, you are exactly right for the most part. Socialism doesn't work without a whole lot of money flying around, but what if through innovation, it becomes more costly not to do it. 30-50 years. That's all.

Here is the problem with your idea... Whenever we provide basic essentials for all as you envision... there is no more motivation to work. Why bother, if everything is going to be provided for you? Sure, some will want to have more... but... think about that for a minute... the same people who are screaming about inequality now would still be screaming the same thing. Why can't we all have a yacht? Why can't we all take a vacation to the Bahamas? We need to provide that too, for everyone to be equal... right?

I think one of our biggest problems with social entitlement programs (not talking about SS or SSI)... is the fact that there is no motivational factor. No one is motivated to do better. We will never be able to resolve the wealth disparity problem because that's natural in a free market system... but in order to mitigate it or diminish it, we have to lift people up by motivating them to succeed. You don't motivate anyone by giving them a check every month.

You may very well be right, of course when people get free things, they would like more free things, that is true. And while some people may be motivated to still finding more meaningful work or advancing themselves in life, many would simply not see the point. All correct points.

However, the main heart of the problem will not be motivation, it will be that there are not enough jobs for nearly close to the population, maybe 1 in 3.

I agree that if I had a production plant running on automation making me a fair bit of money, expansion looks good. However, I would also be much more receptive to the idea of replacing more manpower with automation. Why bother with mechanics when a new company is making a making a robot that does diagnostics and repairs? Hook it up to the plants network and it will find problems and address them quicker than a human mechanic.

There is a software company working to develop an A.I. program that aids programmers in compiling code. The goal is to allow one programmer to write code that may take days in an hour or two. Many of these supplemental
Technologies will reduce the need for more technical jobs.

So, if hundreds of millions of people want to find work and human manpower is obsolete, what then? If their jobs are nonexistent, how do you handle a population that can't find jobs? They can be motivated all they want and still starve in slums.

I know I am playing devil's advocate here, and one bonus for capitalism is this, average people will often be able to be competitive with large companies like never before, a single musician could write masterpieces of record company quality at his computer and sell them, micro businesses would see a huge boom. A programmer could design a product without ever needing to produce it and sell it as intellectual property that could be printed. But realistically, this still could not sustain hundreds of millions.

So I ask again, how do we prepare as a society for what should really be viewed as an inevitability. When human jobs become more and more unnecessary and counter productive even?

 

[Correll]

I disagree that you need to motivate those at the bottom.

You craft policy that leads to job creation and higher wages, people will take them and move up.

Crafting policies is not what creates jobs. You've got to get off this idea that government can fix all problems. Government IS the problem. Private sector jobs are created when businesses expand or new ones emerge. We can do things to encourage that... mainly, get government out of the way. Offer tax incentives, etc. But... the capitalist must have a reason to expand. Government doesn't control that... consumers do.

And no, I don't care what you tell me... you are not going to ever motivate some at the bottom as long as you're providing a comfortable existence for them. Not gonna happen. The vast majority will turn their noses up at work in order to stay home and collect that check.

You have to motivate people. There is no other way to get there. I know that you don't believe that but it's true. We've been trying to bring up the bottom for 70 years by throwing a check at them every month, paying for their food, housing, medicine, every damn thing else... it does not work. Is the gap getting smaller between rich and poor? There's your answer. No motivation!

You've mentioned the problems with our Trade Policy that is causing a dearth of good paying jobs.

If you don't fix that, motivating people will not fix the problem.

THat is not thinking that "government can fix all problems."

 

[Correll]

I heard today the best way to raise wages is to go find a better job.

Did you believe that?

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor. Right now, there is more supply of labor than demand. The problem can't be fixed until that dynamic is changed... plain and simple.

We can certainly discuss all kinds of ways to get there... We can impose heavy import tariffs on foreign goods... that makes American products more competitive-- which will increase sales-- which will increase production-- which will increase jobs. We can cut corporate US tax making our market more attractive to foreign companies who would love to tap into it... creating more new jobs here. We can offer tax incentives for bringing foreign-held American wealth back to create new business-- thus, new jobs. And we can limit regulations and restrictions on American companies-- allowing them to expand easier-- create more jobs.

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor again. Whenever I can't find someone who wants to work for me at $7.50/hr... guess what I will do? That's right.. .I'll offer more!

I've been the employee negotiating with his employer when the employer could not find someone to replace me.

That was sweetness that I wish upon more of my fellow citizens.

Unfortunately not everyone is exceptional like you and I. Even I am replaceable and I am an amazing salesperson. I've worked with people and they are amazed that a company would ever let me go but I guess they do a cost analysis and decide they've milked me for all I'm worth and now that I've done all that marketing they can let me go and their administrative staff can handle all the orders that come in and they don't have to pay me the commission.

They say companies don't like to fire because of turnover costs but I know many companies where high turnover is their business model.

I like unions. Rather than you negotiating for yourself and you being the one person they can't do without, I like a union negotiating for all 500 employees. My way works. Works for the economy, workers and America. It just doesn't work for the corporation. Of course they want us making what Mexicans make because that would improve their bottom line. Corporations have never liked paying any of us Americans what they pay. Not even you, despite the fact that this company would go out of business if you left. LOL.

Collective bargaining is a fine concept.

THe problem is the Unions have been co-opted by dems and libs and seem more concerned with the democratic lib agenda that representing the interests of their members.

If the union manages to force higher wages and our Trade Policy has the company competing against unfair competition, then all they will accomplish is killing the company and the jobs of their members.

 

[danielpalos]

If you are going to dissent you don't need to throw insults around, you just make yourself seem inarticulate. Most of those arguments you're making are supported by no particular reasoning whatsoever, if you have a point, take a deep breath, and type it in a way that's logical to follow. Your assumption that everyone who has employees is evil is crude and your argument went from numbers and reasoning to insults and claiming everyone trying to run a business is Mr. Burns. Think, relax, type.

Bloviating.

Ninety-five percent of employers in the world will ****-over their employees to make a bigger buck.

Why is turn-over a problem for minimum wage positions?

 

[Wyatt earp]

CNN lied again??

The first to drink the piss! Get in line folks!

If you are going to dissent you don't need to throw insults around, you just make yourself seem inarticulate. Most of those arguments you're making are supported by no particular reasoning whatsoever, if you have a point, take a deep breath, and type it in a way that's logical to follow. Your assumption that everyone who has employees is evil is crude and your argument went from numbers and reasoning to insults and claiming everyone trying to run a business is Mr. Burns. Think, relax, type.

Bloviating.

Ninety-five percent of employers in the world will ****-over their employees to make a bigger buck.

Why is turn-over a problem for minimum wage positions?

Well......could it be retard a job for 16 year old girls?

Maybe when you grow up and do the transgender thing you can get a job like that?

 

[sealybobo]

I heard today the best way to raise wages is to go find a better job.

Did you believe that?

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor. Right now, there is more supply of labor than demand. The problem can't be fixed until that dynamic is changed... plain and simple.

We can certainly discuss all kinds of ways to get there... We can impose heavy import tariffs on foreign goods... that makes American products more competitive-- which will increase sales-- which will increase production-- which will increase jobs. We can cut corporate US tax making our market more attractive to foreign companies who would love to tap into it... creating more new jobs here. We can offer tax incentives for bringing foreign-held American wealth back to create new business-- thus, new jobs. And we can limit regulations and restrictions on American companies-- allowing them to expand easier-- create more jobs.

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor again. Whenever I can't find someone who wants to work for me at $7.50/hr... guess what I will do? That's right.. .I'll offer more!

I've been the employee negotiating with his employer when the employer could not find someone to replace me.

That was sweetness that I wish upon more of my fellow citizens.

Unfortunately not everyone is exceptional like you and I. Even I am replaceable and I am an amazing salesperson. I've worked with people and they are amazed that a company would ever let me go but I guess they do a cost analysis and decide they've milked me for all I'm worth and now that I've done all that marketing they can let me go and their administrative staff can handle all the orders that come in and they don't have to pay me the commission.

They say companies don't like to fire because of turnover costs but I know many companies where high turnover is their business model.

I like unions. Rather than you negotiating for yourself and you being the one person they can't do without, I like a union negotiating for all 500 employees. My way works. Works for the economy, workers and America. It just doesn't work for the corporation. Of course they want us making what Mexicans make because that would improve their bottom line. Corporations have never liked paying any of us Americans what they pay. Not even you, despite the fact that this company would go out of business if you left. LOL.

Collective bargaining is a fine concept.

THe problem is the Unions have been co-opted by dems and libs and seem more concerned with the democratic lib agenda that representing the interests of their members.

If the union manages to force higher wages and our Trade Policy has the company competing against unfair competition, then all they will accomplish is killing the company and the jobs of their members.

Well I think we can fix the unfair trade policies but are you suggesting American should lower our wages to compete with the Mexicans and Chinese? I'm hoping their wages come up over time so eventually it won't me "much" cheaper to do it there than it does here. For example, a lot of companies choose to manufacture in Michigan and California for a bunch of reasons rather than go to Arkansas. Location, schools, quality of life, educated work force, lots of people here in Metro Detroit, etc.

 

[Correll]

I heard today the best way to raise wages is to go find a better job.

Did you believe that?

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor. Right now, there is more supply of labor than demand. The problem can't be fixed until that dynamic is changed... plain and simple.

We can certainly discuss all kinds of ways to get there... We can impose heavy import tariffs on foreign goods... that makes American products more competitive-- which will increase sales-- which will increase production-- which will increase jobs. We can cut corporate US tax making our market more attractive to foreign companies who would love to tap into it... creating more new jobs here. We can offer tax incentives for bringing foreign-held American wealth back to create new business-- thus, new jobs. And we can limit regulations and restrictions on American companies-- allowing them to expand easier-- create more jobs.

Again... Wages will rise when there is a demand for labor again. Whenever I can't find someone who wants to work for me at $7.50/hr... guess what I will do? That's right.. .I'll offer more!

I've been the employee negotiating with his employer when the employer could not find someone to replace me.

That was sweetness that I wish upon more of my fellow citizens.

Unfortunately not everyone is exceptional like you and I. Even I am replaceable and I am an amazing salesperson. I've worked with people and they are amazed that a company would ever let me go but I guess they do a cost analysis and decide they've milked me for all I'm worth and now that I've done all that marketing they can let me go and their administrative staff can handle all the orders that come in and they don't have to pay me the commission.

They say companies don't like to fire because of turnover costs but I know many companies where high turnover is their business model.

I like unions. Rather than you negotiating for yourself and you being the one person they can't do without, I like a union negotiating for all 500 employees. My way works. Works for the economy, workers and America. It just doesn't work for the corporation. Of course they want us making what Mexicans make because that would improve their bottom line. Corporations have never liked paying any of us Americans what they pay. Not even you, despite the fact that this company would go out of business if you left. LOL.

Collective bargaining is a fine concept.

THe problem is the Unions have been co-opted by dems and libs and seem more concerned with the democratic lib agenda that representing the interests of their members.

If the union manages to force higher wages and our Trade Policy has the company competing against unfair competition, then all they will accomplish is killing the company and the jobs of their members.

Well I think we can fix the unfair trade policies but are you suggesting American should lower our wages to compete with the Mexicans and Chinese? I'm hoping their wages come up over time so eventually it won't me "much" cheaper to do it there than it does here. For example, a lot of companies choose to manufacture in Michigan and California for a bunch of reasons rather than go to Arkansas. Location, schools, quality of life, educated work force, lots of people here in Metro Detroit, etc.

Nope. I think we need to not trade with people who have spent the last couple of decades f**ing US.

Or slap on a nice tariff to level the playing field.

 

[Boss]

I disagree that you need to motivate those at the bottom.

You craft policy that leads to job creation and higher wages, people will take them and move up.

Crafting policies is not what creates jobs. You've got to get off this idea that government can fix all problems. Government IS the problem. Private sector jobs are created when businesses expand or new ones emerge. We can do things to encourage that... mainly, get government out of the way. Offer tax incentives, etc. But... the capitalist must have a reason to expand. Government doesn't control that... consumers do.

And no, I don't care what you tell me... you are not going to ever motivate some at the bottom as long as you're providing a comfortable existence for them. Not gonna happen. The vast majority will turn their noses up at work in order to stay home and collect that check.

You have to motivate people. There is no other way to get there. I know that you don't believe that but it's true. We've been trying to bring up the bottom for 70 years by throwing a check at them every month, paying for their food, housing, medicine, every damn thing else... it does not work. Is the gap getting smaller between rich and poor? There's your answer. No motivation!

You've mentioned the problems with our Trade Policy that is causing a dearth of good paying jobs.

If you don't fix that, motivating people will not fix the problem.

THat is not thinking that "government can fix all problems."

I mentioned a number of things that we need to do in order to get higher paying jobs. The primary thing is to create more demand for labor. But on the subject of wealth disparity between rich and poor, there is nothing much we can do because that is a natural byproduct of free market systems. We can alleviate the situation by motivating those at the very bottom. However, you are correct, until there are jobs the motivation is pointless.

Now you can say that they don't need no motivatin' but the hard cold truth is, everyone needs motivation to DO anything. The problem at the bottom is, no one is motivated because we take care of all their needs and require nothing. This serves as an anchor for prosperity at the bottom while the top continues to rise. In a free market system, that dynamic will never be eliminated but we can lessen the effect by motivating the bottom and getting them to produce more prosperity for themselves. There is no other way to make that happen.

 

[Boss]

Well I think we can fix the unfair trade policies but are you suggesting American should lower our wages to compete with the Mexicans and Chinese? I'm hoping their wages come up over time so eventually it won't me "much" cheaper to do it there than it does here. For example, a lot of companies choose to manufacture in Michigan and California for a bunch of reasons rather than go to Arkansas. Location, schools, quality of life, educated work force, lots of people here in Metro Detroit, etc.

You really are under the impression that the rest of the world are free market capitalists like us, aren't you? Maybe China can raise their minimum wage and Mexico can redistribute wealth by "taxing the rich?"

China is a Communist government and Mexico is a corrupt government. In Mexico, they would laugh their asses off if you protested for $15hr minimum wage... in China, they'd shoot you in the head. So... no, these countries are not going to raise their wages. Yet-- we are entered into trade agreements with them to allow them to sell their goods here, to American consumers. This forces our companies to have to compete with them while they have a distinct advantage. Not only is this killing US jobs, it's also killing any chance at higher pay.

Now, IF we add tariffs onto their imports... has virtually the same effect as if they raised their cost of labor, as far as we are concerned. It makes American-made products more competitive... thus creating more American jobs. And remember, in order to get to "better paying jobs" we first have to increase demand for labor.

 

[sealybobo]

Well I think we can fix the unfair trade policies but are you suggesting American should lower our wages to compete with the Mexicans and Chinese? I'm hoping their wages come up over time so eventually it won't me "much" cheaper to do it there than it does here. For example, a lot of companies choose to manufacture in Michigan and California for a bunch of reasons rather than go to Arkansas. Location, schools, quality of life, educated work force, lots of people here in Metro Detroit, etc.

You really are under the impression that the rest of the world are free market capitalists like us, aren't you? Maybe China can raise their minimum wage and Mexico can redistribute wealth by "taxing the rich?"

China is a Communist government and Mexico is a corrupt government. In Mexico, they would laugh their asses off if you protested for $15hr minimum wage... in China, they'd shoot you in the head. So... no, these countries are not going to raise their wages. Yet-- we are entered into trade agreements with them to allow them to sell their goods here, to American consumers. This forces our companies to have to compete with them while they have a distinct advantage. Not only is this killing US jobs, it's also killing any chance at higher pay.

Now, IF we add tariffs onto their imports... has virtually the same effect as if they raised their cost of labor, as far as we are concerned. It makes American-made products more competitive... thus creating more American jobs. And remember, in order to get to "better paying jobs" we first have to increase demand for labor.

Confederation of Mexican Workers - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It wasn’t long ago that China was the cheapest place on earth to make just about anything. When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the average hourly manufacturing wage in the Yangtze River Delta was 82¢ an hour. Oil was $20 a barrel, so no matter where you were ultimately selling your Chinese-made goods, it didn’t cost much to get it there.

China’s still cheap, but it’s nowhere near the deal it was just a few years ago. Workers in the Yangtze make almost $5 an hour today, and oil costs about $85 a barrel. Suddenly the benefits of making things in China aren’t so apparent, especially if you’re selling those things to consumers in the U.S. A new survey by Boston Consulting Group found that 16 percent of American manufacturing executives say they’re already bringing production back home from China. That’s up from 13 percent a year ago. Twenty percent said they would consider doing so in the near future.

China s Rising Wages and the Made in USA Revival - Businessweek

 

[Boss]

I will say this one quick thing, and I hope you can forgive my ideological madness. If one day through the advance of technology we come to a time when production of goods is incredibly easy and cheap and millions of workers are not needed, there may come a time when we as a people provide basic amenities to anyone, regardless. A base standard of living if you will. I know this sounds inherently Marxist. People should still be rewarded for their ingenuity, jobs will still exist, but there should be no reason that housing, food, water and basics should not be provided. This sounds like the redistribution of wealth, and in a sense it may be, but wealth will be so plentiful, so available, when you can print products off a machine, energy advances to be cheaper, cleaner, THROUGH the engine of free enterprise, we may come to a place where the relative cost for providing basic human needs is so little, there's no reason not to do it. Those with ambition, who want more than the status quo will continue to innovate and mankind can focus on things other than just eking a living. Many of those economic principles you listed that failed, you are exactly right for the most part. Socialism doesn't work without a whole lot of money flying around, but what if through innovation, it becomes more costly not to do it. 30-50 years. That's all.

Here is the problem with your idea... Whenever we provide basic essentials for all as you envision... there is no more motivation to work. Why bother, if everything is going to be provided for you? Sure, some will want to have more... but... think about that for a minute... the same people who are screaming about inequality now would still be screaming the same thing. Why can't we all have a yacht? Why can't we all take a vacation to the Bahamas? We need to provide that too, for everyone to be equal... right?

I think one of our biggest problems with social entitlement programs (not talking about SS or SSI)... is the fact that there is no motivational factor. No one is motivated to do better. We will never be able to resolve the wealth disparity problem because that's natural in a free market system... but in order to mitigate it or diminish it, we have to lift people up by motivating them to succeed. You don't motivate anyone by giving them a check every month.

You may very well be right, of course when people get free things, they would like more free things, that is true. And while some people may be motivated to still finding more meaningful work or advancing themselves in life, many would simply not see the point. All correct points.

However, the main heart of the problem will not be motivation, it will be that there are not enough jobs for nearly close to the population, maybe 1 in 3.

I agree that if I had a production plant running on automation making me a fair bit of money, expansion looks good. However, I would also be much more receptive to the idea of replacing more manpower with automation. Why bother with mechanics when a new company is making a making a robot that does diagnostics and repairs? Hook it up to the plants network and it will find problems and address them quicker than a human mechanic.

There is a software company working to develop an A.I. program that aids programmers in compiling code. The goal is to allow one programmer to write code that may take days in an hour or two. Many of these supplemental
Technologies will reduce the need for more technical jobs.

So, if hundreds of millions of people want to find work and human manpower is obsolete, what then? If their jobs are nonexistent, how do you handle a population that can't find jobs? They can be motivated all they want and still starve in slums.

I know I am playing devil's advocate here, and one bonus for capitalism is this, average people will often be able to be competitive with large companies like never before, a single musician could write masterpieces of record company quality at his computer and sell them, micro businesses would see a huge boom. A programmer could design a product without ever needing to produce it and sell it as intellectual property that could be printed. But realistically, this still could not sustain hundreds of millions.

So I ask again, how do we prepare as a society for what should really be viewed as an inevitability. When human jobs become more and more unnecessary and counter productive even?

I guess I see what you're saying but it's sort of like asking... What happens when we run out of oil? I'm hoping future generations find a solution and we aren't dependent on fossil fuels in the future. But just like the issue of raising up the poor... people have to be motivated to find the solutions and make those changes.

I think, realistically, what you are talking about isn't going to happen in the next century. Yes, we are already seeing a boom in technology like never before, but no reason to start fearing the sky is falling. We have a very long way to go before everything is done by robots and computers. AND... something we haven't considered... cataclysmic events. Old Mother Earth is currently beating her odds with that. We are overdue for a major cataclysmic event. Before we reach this Utopian world where no one has to work... I suspect nature will have her way with us and we'll be set back a century on technology... or maybe even more.

 

[sealybobo]

I will say this one quick thing, and I hope you can forgive my ideological madness. If one day through the advance of technology we come to a time when production of goods is incredibly easy and cheap and millions of workers are not needed, there may come a time when we as a people provide basic amenities to anyone, regardless. A base standard of living if you will. I know this sounds inherently Marxist. People should still be rewarded for their ingenuity, jobs will still exist, but there should be no reason that housing, food, water and basics should not be provided. This sounds like the redistribution of wealth, and in a sense it may be, but wealth will be so plentiful, so available, when you can print products off a machine, energy advances to be cheaper, cleaner, THROUGH the engine of free enterprise, we may come to a place where the relative cost for providing basic human needs is so little, there's no reason not to do it. Those with ambition, who want more than the status quo will continue to innovate and mankind can focus on things other than just eking a living. Many of those economic principles you listed that failed, you are exactly right for the most part. Socialism doesn't work without a whole lot of money flying around, but what if through innovation, it becomes more costly not to do it. 30-50 years. That's all.

Here is the problem with your idea... Whenever we provide basic essentials for all as you envision... there is no more motivation to work. Why bother, if everything is going to be provided for you? Sure, some will want to have more... but... think about that for a minute... the same people who are screaming about inequality now would still be screaming the same thing. Why can't we all have a yacht? Why can't we all take a vacation to the Bahamas? We need to provide that too, for everyone to be equal... right?

I think one of our biggest problems with social entitlement programs (not talking about SS or SSI)... is the fact that there is no motivational factor. No one is motivated to do better. We will never be able to resolve the wealth disparity problem because that's natural in a free market system... but in order to mitigate it or diminish it, we have to lift people up by motivating them to succeed. You don't motivate anyone by giving them a check every month.

You may very well be right, of course when people get free things, they would like more free things, that is true. And while some people may be motivated to still finding more meaningful work or advancing themselves in life, many would simply not see the point. All correct points.

However, the main heart of the problem will not be motivation, it will be that there are not enough jobs for nearly close to the population, maybe 1 in 3.

I agree that if I had a production plant running on automation making me a fair bit of money, expansion looks good. However, I would also be much more receptive to the idea of replacing more manpower with automation. Why bother with mechanics when a new company is making a making a robot that does diagnostics and repairs? Hook it up to the plants network and it will find problems and address them quicker than a human mechanic.

There is a software company working to develop an A.I. program that aids programmers in compiling code. The goal is to allow one programmer to write code that may take days in an hour or two. Many of these supplemental
Technologies will reduce the need for more technical jobs.

So, if hundreds of millions of people want to find work and human manpower is obsolete, what then? If their jobs are nonexistent, how do you handle a population that can't find jobs? They can be motivated all they want and still starve in slums.

I know I am playing devil's advocate here, and one bonus for capitalism is this, average people will often be able to be competitive with large companies like never before, a single musician could write masterpieces of record company quality at his computer and sell them, micro businesses would see a huge boom. A programmer could design a product without ever needing to produce it and sell it as intellectual property that could be printed. But realistically, this still could not sustain hundreds of millions.

So I ask again, how do we prepare as a society for what should really be viewed as an inevitability. When human jobs become more and more unnecessary and counter productive even?

I guess I see what you're saying but it's sort of like asking... What happens when we run out of oil? I'm hoping future generations find a solution and we aren't dependent on fossil fuels in the future. But just like the issue of raising up the poor... people have to be motivated to find the solutions and make those changes.

I think, realistically, what you are talking about isn't going to happen in the next century. Yes, we are already seeing a boom in technology like never before, but no reason to start fearing the sky is falling. We have a very long way to go before everything is done by robots and computers. AND... something we haven't considered... cataclysmic events. Old Mother Earth is currently beating her odds with that. We are overdue for a major cataclysmic event. Before we reach this Utopian world where no one has to work... I suspect nature will have her way with us and we'll be set back a century on technology... or maybe even more.

Maybe in the future we won't have 7 billion people on planet earth. If the 1 billion rich people don't need 6 billion workers maybe we won't have 2.5 kids each anymore. Maybe future humans will have 1 or no kids each. So on average we have .5 kids each. I think that would be great for this planet.

Its too bad we don't have a predator to keep our numbers down. Like one day you're walking with your wife and kids and a big dragon flies out of no where and takes little johnny.

 

[Boss]

Maybe in the future we won't have 7 billion people on planet earth. If the 1 billion rich people don't need 6 billion workers maybe we won't have 2.5 kids each anymore. Maybe future humans will have 1 or no kids each. So on average we have .5 kids each. I think that would be great for this planet.

Its too bad we don't have a predator to keep our numbers down. Like one day you're walking with your wife and kids and a big dragon flies out of no where and takes little johnny.

Yes... We're all aware of your lust and zeal for killing off little children.

(...betting you make a wicked clown on Halloween!)