|
Post by mdub on Nov 27, 2011 2:17:35 GMT -6
A recent article by Roberts Reich, dealing with the slow decline of the middle class in the past 30 years. He's careful not to blame outsourcing, stating instead that the majority of jobs lost were due to automation. Theoretically, the displaced workers could be put to work designing, engineering, and manufacturing the machines, but it's doubtful any of them were made in the U.S. www.economyincrisis.org/content/truth-about-american-economy
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Nov 27, 2011 7:00:02 GMT -6
So much for a (former) Secretary of Labor. I like his writings otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 27, 2011 10:52:57 GMT -6
A recent article by Roberts Reich, dealing with the slow decline of the middle class in the past 30 years. He's careful not to blame outsourcing, stating instead that the majority of jobs lost were due to automation. Theoretically, the displaced workers could be put to work designing, engineering, and manufacturing the machines, but it's doubtful any of them were made in the U.S. www.economyincrisis.org/content/truth-about-american-economyI read the same article and actually commented on it over at Economy-in-Crisis. I agree with much of what Reich wrote. But as I stated in my other post, I disagree with him on globalization. But Reich may be starting to turn the corner (a little) on globalization. He at least acknowledged (vaguely) that globalization may be suppressing wages. That's marks a change in Reich's previous gung-ho, globalist, pro-free trade position from before. I think (or at least hope) that Reich is starting to realize the error of his previous position on this. If Reich was pressed on the issue, he'd undoubtedly blame much of the problems on the "lack-of-enforcement" of trade rules. But that would be a week argument, at best. To begin with, rules enforcement would not eliminate the 50¢ to $1/hour wage advantage of using foreign labor. Secondly, there are so many loopholes and exceptions in the rules that they can be bypassed anyway. China bypasses most of them by being labeled a "non-market" economy. Furthermore, there's never been any major interest in enforcing the rules to begin with. In fact, it's in American multinationals' best interests that rules protecting their own cheap foreign labor NOT be enforced. Thus from the outset, there was no serious intention of ever enforcing most of the rules, especially those protecting labor.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Nov 27, 2011 13:24:26 GMT -6
So many flaws in the automation eliminating jobs arguments
here are some comments on the subject I have made before but will repeat again
There has been no break through automation technologies over the past decade that can begin to account for the staggering loss of manufacturing jobs. Robots, Lasers, PLCs, CNC, Servos, are all considered mature technologies and havent changed much in 20 years.
While automation can eliminate some repetitive jobs, they also create jobs, programming, operating, maintaining, tooling, reparing and building the equipment - these are typically higher skill higher education jobs that require understanding of electronics, computers, fluid power and other engineering principles. The automation industry employs over 3 million people world wide according to Industry Week
Automation requires high volume repetitve processes to justify its cost. Bean counters will often determine that its more profitable to outsource than it is to invest big bucks in automation
Higher skill engineering and tech jobs that automation generates will also demand higher wages and that makes them also targets for offshoring.
the automation industry peaked in 1998. it took a serious downturn in the 01 recession and never fully recovered, in 08 it declined again erasing the slight gains made from 01. One would think the automation industry would be booming if it were the primary culprit in the job losses.
Yes, I get that the word processor eliminated secretarial jobs, and CAD has made draftsmen obsolete. But now the CAD jobs are offshored as are the lowere level clerical jobs. that happened already that is not a new phenomenon
I like Reich, and usually agree with most of what he says. But for whatever strange reason he can't seem to move away for the globalist and free trade poliicies he was part of during the Clinton administration. As ULC points out he has been slowly softenening his stance on this but still has a long way to go
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Nov 27, 2011 14:00:32 GMT -6
So many flaws in the automation eliminating jobs arguments here are some comments on the subject I have made before but will repeat again There has been no break through automation technologies over the past decade that can begin to account for the staggering loss of manufacturing jobs. Robots, Lasers, PLCs, CNC, Servos, are all considered mature technologies and havent changed much in 20 years. While automation can eliminate some repetitive jobs, they also create jobs, programming, operating, maintaining, tooling, reparing and building the equipment - these are typically higher skill higher education jobs that require understanding of electronics, computers, fluid power and other engineering principles. The automation industry employs over 3 million people world wide according to Industry Week That has been true in the past. Very much so, in the past. However as you saw at Foxconn, they're about to replace a TON of workers with machines. Where are those workers going to find jobs?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 27, 2011 23:41:17 GMT -6
So many flaws in the automation eliminating jobs arguments. While automation can eliminate some repetitive jobs, they also create jobs, programming, operating, maintaining, tooling, reparing and building the equipment - these are typically higher skill higher education jobs that require understanding of electronics, computers, fluid power and other engineering principles. The automation industry employs over 3 million people world wide according to Industry Week Amen to that. But there's a more basic problem that I'll get to below The answer to this is surprisingly simple. Jobs Lost to Automation = Increased Wage Productivity GapYes, it is that simple. Automation simply increases the productivity of an individual worker. If that worker isn't paid commensurate with that increased productivity, it creates a wage-productivity gap.Increased automation is just a form of increased productivity. When workers' pay isn't increased in proportion to their productivity (including via automation), it worsens this gap. Economist Ravi Batra described this principle very eloquently in his book: Greenspan's Fraud written in 2005. I recommend that everyone read this book. It's excellent. No one has ever lost a job in all of recorded human history solely to "automation." They've lost jobs because they weren't paid in accordance with the productivity increase that resulted from that automation. Automation increases workers' productivity. If they're not paid in proportion to that productivity increase, then a wage-productivity gap occurs. This, in fact, is an ongoing phenomena. The whole diatribe about workers losing jobs due to automation is propaganda. If a worker can produce 2x as much due to automation, than he should be paid 2x as much. If, in fact, he IS paid 2x as much, then no jobs are lost. His increased demand for goods increases demand for production and workers elsewhere, completely offsetting the "loss of jobs due to automation." Jobs are only lost to automation when the increased productivity that results is not proportionally shared with worker-consumers. It's wrong to call this a loss of jobs due to automation. It's a loss of jobs due to an increase in the wage-productivity gap. The notion that "automation reduces employment" is Plutocratic Corporatist Globalist bullshit. Pay workers commensurate with their productivity increase, and there is absolutely NO loss of jobs.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Nov 28, 2011 1:56:59 GMT -6
That is all quite true, ULC - but the Plutocrats have a wet dream they've been pursuing that will change all of that, if they are successful.
They want fully automated factories. That means there are only 2 workers that they will need: a maintenance guy and a programmer, both of which can be brought in occasionally as contractors aka just-in-time employment. 99% of the time the factory of the Plutocracy's wet dream world will have no employees. Zip. Zero.
The goal of automation, in the hands of Plutocrats, is not reducing compensation for productivity increases. That's the short term. The long term goal is no human employees, period. What do we do then?
Ravi Batra is correct because that goal is unattainable for the near future. Machines augment humans today and cannot outright replace them. But what happens if machines totally replace humans in a factory? Is this possible?
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Nov 28, 2011 5:32:34 GMT -6
That is all quite true, ULC - but the Plutocrats have a wet dream they've been pursuing that will change all of that, if they are successful. They want fully automated factories. That means there are only 2 workers that they will need: a maintenance guy and a programmer, both of which can be brought in occasionally as contractors aka just-in-time employment. 99% of the time the factory of the Plutocracy's wet dream world will have no employees. Zip. Zero. The goal of automation, in the hands of Plutocrats, is not reducing compensation for productivity increases. That's the short term. The long term goal is no human employees, period. What do we do then? Ravi Batra is correct because that goal is unattainable for the near future. Machines augment humans today and cannot outright replace them. But what happens if machines totally replace humans in a factory? Is this possible? This may be true in a distant future. but there are problems with this. even the most advanced robotics still can't mimic all the things a human can do - especially things that require two handed eye hand coordination operations. And certainly not at a price that the MBAs would justify over simply outsourcing Just like your computerized automobile, or your computer - automated equipment is complex and not 100 percent reliable. hence requiring technicians to operate, program and maintain - again at higher cost than a component of manual labor Automation requires high volumes, todays production environment requires quick change outs and flexibility - not easy or inexpensive for dedicated automation equipment to do And again - most of what is considered high tech factory automation is mature technology - there haven't been any break throughs in the past ten years nor are there any on the immediate horizon that I am aware of
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Nov 28, 2011 13:24:32 GMT -6
And again - most of what is considered high tech factory automation is mature technology - there haven't been any break throughs in the past ten years nor are there any on the immediate horizon that I am aware of I hope it stays that way because really, the Plutocrats' endgame strategy is to make workers completely unnecessary. Given their motives, it's only logical that they pursue that kind of goal. In the interim years, the captains of industry want to make it so that fewer workers are needed. Today they're just happy with not paying workers in proportion to the productivity increases created by current automation tech. We have to end that practice - and prepare for the next stage of their assault on workers.
|
|