What i mean is ban some or most of the machines that produce materials or shape things.
or at least make them more man operated. why do this?
simple. it will create jobs.the fewer machines we have to do things for us the more we rely on ourselves. we need some of these machines gone. but we need to do it slowly as not to bankrupt companies. if i am wrong about this please tell me how i am wrong and prove it so that i can be corrected if i am wrong.
Although its a good idea, it just doesn't work, a factory that has mostly machines will almost always produce a lot more products then a factory thats mostly composed of manual labor.
I'm not sure if this story is true or not, but I remember in around the early 1900's German made cars were a lot higher quality since they were hand-made by professional engineers. However, their cars didn't sell because they were expensive and hard to get.
American made cars, although they had poor parts and were assembled by a crew of machines and brainless labourers, the main reason they sold was this one key factor. Mass-production. Which in turn reduces costs due to quantity and less wages spent on building the car itself.
To cut it short: Machines rule factories for a reason, they produce a lot more products then a human, for merely a fraction of the cost it would take to allow a common north American to feed his/her family. It just doesn't work in todays business world.
I think you need to be more specific unless you want the thread to be locked.
For instance, why don't you give an example of which machines should be removed and how people will be better off as result?
I like this idea, but I don't think it goes far enough. I also think we should ban automobiles, no cars means people will have to take a walk thus reducing obesity. Maybe we should also get rid of computers so the libraries can keep open as well.
"Communism is the very definition of failure." - Liberty Prime.
Why force humans to do unrewarding work that machines could do better for a fraction of the resources?
wolf piss
Incorrect, mechanization does not eliminate jobs. The fundamental premise of your argument is wrong.
Sure, but don't expect a high productions of the hundreds of things produces in factory lines. You can lower your expectancy for quality as well.
I understand your statement about lack of jobs and such. But our society is so reliant on these items and the size they are being produced, is it really worth creating more jobs over? Wouldn't it be in fact easier to create new jobs?
At 1/30/11 10:04 PM, Qtw wrote: please tell me how i am wrong and prove it so that i can be corrected if i am wrong.
***WATCH THIS VIDEO*** (the whole thing)
You should really watch all of the videos in the series, but to understand why your idea is extremely foolish, then you only need to watch this one.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
Yeah because a hand soldered motherboard is a good idea. Oh wait how do you get the PCB to begin with? Would hand made multi-core processors even be possible?
No thanks I will stick with reliable quality thats been made affordable!
In a sensible society, "we don't have any need to work as much to produce what we need" would be a positive thing and would result in people working less and living more meaningful lives. In this society, however, it results in making up pointless jobs only related to finance and getting people to demand more stuff they don't need, to further force people to work under threat of starvation and bring in more profit to the top.
We could easily have 100% employment, since there's stuff that needs to be done - just not for 8 hours a day. It is, however, far more profitable to keep a certain number of people unemployed and keeping those people poor, so that they take any job and thus compete for the jobs through lowering their claim for wages.
Basically, we've got unemployment to keep wages low. If everyone had something to do, they'd start demanding more pay without as large risk of getting fired.
You shouldn't believe that you have the right of free thinking, it's a threat to our democracy.
Med all respekt för alla rika svin jag känner - ni blir aldrig mina vänner.
At 1/30/11 10:04 PM, Qtw wrote: What i mean is ban some or most of the machines that produce materials or shape things.
or at least make them more man operated. why do this?
simple. it will create jobs.the fewer machines we have to do things for us the more we rely on ourselves. we need some of these machines gone. but we need to do it slowly as not to bankrupt companies. if i am wrong about this please tell me how i am wrong and prove it so that i can be corrected if i am wrong.
So what you're saying is that we should go back to the way things were in the 1900's with manufacturing in general. I can tell you that would be a bad idea right from the start, considering America became a economic power by mass-producing goods, {i.e cars, planes, etc.} and without that, everything would be expensive to make and obtain.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
There is no deficiency of demand. When a machine is developed to take the place of a human in the process of production, it just means that the labor is then made available to alternative methods of production.
over a century ago, at least 90%, probably closer to 95% of the population was involved in agriculture. Toady, that number is closer to 3%, that doesn't mean the differential 90% of the people in the world are chronically unemployed, it just means their involved in producing things that did not exist at the turn of the century.
Deliberately switching to more labor intensive methods of production does not make anyone wealthier.
If you want to live a life free from capital-intensive production methods for purely spiritual or aesthetic reasons, by all means go ahead and live that life for yourself, just don't expect people to willingly adopt it as a statist national policy.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
The reason there's a lack of jobs today is becuase mechanization has nearly replaced all replaced manual labor , and effectively it's means in order for us to survive only a small fraction of the human population has to actually work.
Eventually service jobs will all be mechanized as well , already self check outs are becoming common place and will probably make up most service center within 20-50 years. What this basically means is that in order to find employment the vast majority of workers will have to employed in intellectual/entertainment fields within the next 100 years.
Basically we'll all be creating things like I phones apps for employment within the next century , while a smaller segment will be doing technical/intellectual labor like programming/systems management ect: (or perhaps they will be the largest segment) either way employment based around manual labor will be dead soon and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
"Work hard, sleep hard, play hard!"
At 1/30/11 10:04 PM, Qtw wrote: What i mean is ban some or most of the machines that produce materials or shape things.
or at least make them more man operated. why do this?
simple. it will create jobs.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I have heard so far this week. LET'S STOP USING MACHINES SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK MORE, LOL, TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, LOL.
Who cares if it will create jobs?
I used to think that SadisticMonkey was discrediting himself by accusing other people of being economic illiterates.
However I think in this particular context that diagnosis is accurate.
I'll put it another way. If labor saving equipment was deliberately destroyed for the purposes of increasing employment, it would sharply reduce the supply of goods and [in some cases] services in the economy. This would lead to higher prices, and by consequence.
When people have to pay more for the now fewer stock of goods and services in an economy, their 'real' incomes decline, and so whatever 'gains' made by having more people work in a SPECIFIC industry have to be met by cuts to other industries
Or to put it another way, in order for this economic strategy to work, you have to believe that An economy can produce fewer goods and services while at the same time the income of all individuals in that economy remain the same over time. This flies in the face of rationality, since income in this context is precisely defined as one's ability to command the use of goods and services.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 1/31/11 11:54 AM, fatape wrote: The reason there's a lack of jobs today is becuase mechanization has nearly replaced all replaced manual labor , and effectively it's means in order for us to survive only a small fraction of the human population has to actually work.
That is very much not true. The lack of jobs today has little to do with the mechanization of industry. Let's take a quick look back at this "Manual Labor Industry" you speak of. You are speaking on rivetting together machines, and mining and such. Well, turn back the clock even more. Before the invention of the mechanical hammer we could not rivet. It would take people numerous man hours to weld and build through other slower methods. The rivet lost numerous job, but the economy was fine. The railroad killed a great deal of horse-based couriers, but the economy did fine. The invention of flight killed numerous sea based transportation methods, but the economy did fine.
Pretty much EVERY mechanical invention since the beginning of the modern sense of "economy" killed job. However in EVERy case, the economy did not suffer, it actually prospered. The ability to do things quicker freed up resources and costs to be allocated elsewhere where jobs could be reclaimed at a better benefit to society.
What about this change is any different?
Eventually service jobs will all be mechanized as well , already self check outs are becoming common place and will probably make up most service center within 20-50 years. What this basically means is that in order to find employment the vast majority of workers will have to employed in intellectual/entertainment fields within the next 100 years.
Don't have a clue what you mean here. We have developed some very sophisticated methods of automation, but we have yet to build AI. Every single robot that is built requires design, matainence, checking. Furthermore, no machine could replace the service industry (professional service, not retail). The nature of this industry requires human creativity. Same goes for medicine and many other industries.
But what of the people whose jobs are to build, design and to maintain these machines?
Actualy I agree. And while we're at it let's ban medecine - it cost that "Bring out yer dead" guy his job!
At 1/30/11 10:18 PM, SimCorder wrote: I'm not sure if this story is true or not, but I remember in around the early 1900's German made cars were a lot higher quality since they were hand-made by professional engineers.
"Hand-made" doesn't translate into "higher quality." Machines provide uniformity and reliability in manufacturing processes, thereby reducing the need for unskilled labor (or obsolete skilled labor). It doesn't matter if something is handmade or not as long as it's done well.
At 1/31/11 06:36 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: In a sensible society, "we don't have any need to work as much to produce what we need" would be a positive thing and would result in people working less and living more meaningful lives. In this society, however, it results in making up pointless jobs only related to finance and getting people to demand more stuff they don't need, to further force people to work under threat of starvation and bring in more profit to the top.
The reason we have unemployment is because we have a constant surplus of labor, i.e., there are millions of people out there who are USELESS, that is, they are unemployed or are in jobs that provide no tangible benefit because we already have all the workers they need. High turnover rate and a lot of practically useless jobs all hide this fact. In fact, look at the top 15 jobs that make up a whopping one-quarter of all employment in the United States.
Retail sales, cashiers, and office clerks. Fry cooks and waiters. Customer service representatives. Janitors. Accountants. Imagine what'll happen when all these jobs are completely replaced by machines or simply done away with altogether.
We could easily have 100% employment, since there's stuff that needs to be done - just not for 8 hours a day.
This is basically saying, "Yeah, you guys don't really have an excuse for just sitting there, so just go out there and do something."
Your thinking would make my city of what is left of manufacturing out business and people unemployed as we make those machines.
Well we were dumb enough to think it was gonna happen.
No wait, I have a BETTER IDEA!
Let's create factories for absolutely useless widgets that only serve to stimulate the economy, e.g. screen doors for submarines, glass machine guns, cardboard body armor, and so on. Workers get paid $20-25 an hour, can form unions, etc. and taxpayers are forced to buy them to create demand (or they get a tax credit, whatever). People just have to buy them; what they do afterwards is none of our concern.
This is a good idea because it'll STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS!
At 1/30/11 11:41 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Why force humans to do unrewarding work that machines could do better for a fraction of the resources?
This. We don't have the right to be forcing Companies not to use machines or technology. Secondly, that's going to be mechanics and engineers out of business.
Render Unto Caesar
At 1/31/11 06:36 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: In a sensible society, "we don't have any need to work as much to produce what we need"
And so begins the ideological rise of Marxism!
Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.
At 1/31/11 06:58 PM, KemCab wrote: No wait, I have a BETTER IDEA!
Let's create factories for absolutely useless widgets that only serve to stimulate the economy, e.g. screen doors for submarines, glass machine guns, cardboard body armor, and so on. Workers get paid $20-25 an hour, can form unions, etc. and taxpayers are forced to buy them to create demand (or they get a tax credit, whatever). People just have to buy them; what they do afterwards is none of our concern.
This is a good idea because it'll STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS!
Either your being satirical over the whole "Capitalist Machine" and why Marx believes revolution is inevitable. or your talking in a way that exceeds my understanding of the economy.
Either way I sure would suurreee love a microwave with a built in webcam that broadcasts to my television, so I don't have to get up to see if I've overdone the porridge!
Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.
At 1/31/11 07:20 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:At 1/31/11 06:58 PM, KemCab wrote: This is a good idea because it'll STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS!Either your being satirical
Yeah, that was sarcasm.
At 1/31/11 06:36 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: In a sensible society, "we don't have any need to work as much to produce what we need" would be a positive thing and would result in people working less and living more meaningful lives.
Over time, goods on an actually free market would become considerably cheaper, and so in order for people to maintain the same standard of living people would need to work less, which is to say that the expenditure of the same amount of labor would lead to a greater material standard of living.
In today's "mixed market", government intervention directly or indirectly results in less firms, resulting in less competition, resulting in higher prices, and hence more labour is necessary to maintain
and living more meaningful lives.
"meaningful" is subjective, which is important especially because many people find meaning in their employment.
In this society, however, it results in making up pointless jobs only related to finance
Strictly speaking they're not useless (in the way that digging holes and filling them up again is), but what is important to note is the federal reserve offering nearly free credit causes an unnaturally large number of people to seek employment in finance.
and getting people to demand more stuff they don't need,
How do they "get" people to demand this stuff?
Is opening up a shop selling entertaining but ultimately unnecessary video games a way of "getting people to demand" stuff?
I really don't get what you're trying to day here.
to further force people to work under threat of starvation
They don't threaten them with shit. It's called NATURE.
If you go out into the wilderness with no food and subsequently starve to death, is this death caused by corporations who didn't come out after you and give you food? No of course not, but for some reason when you live in teh same area, this magically changes according to you.
and bring in more profit to the top.
profit is made by producing goods and services that people value. If your firm isn't profitable, which is something you apparently think is a good thing, it means you are wasting resources producing things people don't value.
We could easily have 100% employment, since there's stuff that needs to be done - just not for 8 hours a day.
Sure, it's called the free market.
It is, however, far more profitable to keep a certain number of people unemployed and keeping those people poor, so that they take any job and thus compete for the jobs through lowering their claim for wages.
Basically, we've got unemployment to keep wages low.
Sigh...it's all a big conspiracy between thousands of people who've never met each other, right?
If everyone had something to do, they'd start demanding more pay without as large risk of getting fired.
So? If everyone was working, then more shit would be produced and so employers would be richer too.
Honestly this is the most fucking retarded shit ever.
Say I own a factory, and I decide that in order to make more income I'll open up another factory.
I'll need more employees in order to work this new factory. Now, increasing the number of people that are employed would be to my financial advantage...but you're claiming I wouldn't do this because I want to keep employment down, even though this would have negligible effect upon wages and would have a MASSIVE opportunity cost?
hahahah, jesus Christ.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
Well new technology reduces the cost of inputs for an industry, which would allow them to produce not only more, but with greater efficiency and at less cost to them (shifting the supply curve right if you want it straight out of a text book). It has one benefit of reducing the costs to consumers given the product can be produced more effectively, and since the producer now has a larger profit, he can shift this into growing his business, paying current workers a better salary, etc.
I think looking at this in the same way as in the OP is a little one dimensional; like looking at it with blinders on. Yes, those workers do "lose their jobs to the machinery", but the other benefits more than out weigh that. Not to mention that it's not as though they will never find a job again and are simply doomed to sit out in the cold.
If life gives you lemons, read the fine print; chances are, there's a monthly fee attached.
you suck ass, lets use sticks only so we need a LOT of people to do shit, fucking primitive shit.
What a perfect example of talking out of your ass. It doesn't matter what type it is there will always be factory jobs, because believe it or not, there's still jobs machines can't (and never will) do. Here's an example: Plastic tray factories (I work at one). Machines are what make the trays. A person can't unless they can inject molten plastic at high pressure into a huge mold by hand, within as little as 30 seconds.
And what about when a factory cuts down on labor by better utilizing existing labor? If the cycles are slow enough the place I work at will have 1 operator run 2 machines.
That's right I like guns and ponies. Problem cocksuckers?
Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense. IMPEACH OBAMA.
This will not do anything to improve the economy, since you're essentially paying people to produce nothing.
At 2/1/11 04:46 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: "meaningful" is subjective, which is important especially because many people find meaning in their employment.
If people find meaning in it, wouldn't they do it even if they weren't getting paid for it?
wolf piss
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
