Learning Manufacturing Robot

[babesagainstmachines]

Everyone (on here) knows that and signs onto it, there's no dispute. But solving that requires only one thing (and nothing less than) the land ownership issue being sorted.

Exactly, but it doesn't stop people (yourself included) banging on about the low level scroungers first, then only getting to the land issue after a dozen pages.

Nobody owes me a living, but in absence of my fair access to the land, I'll expect to be recompensed to stop me from kicking up a stink. *

*I'm self-employed, but happy to take the tax credits. If I sit on my ****, I pay for it myself.

[bogbrush]

Exactly, but it doesn't stop people (yourself included) banging on about the low level scroungers first, then only getting to the land issue after a dozen pages.

Nobody owes me a living, but in absence of my fair access to the land, I'll expect to be recompensed to stop me from kicking up a stink. *

*I'm self-employed, but happy to take the tax credits. If I sit on my ****, I pay for it myself.

Neither do I bang on about other basic, established facts before discussing a matter.

By the way, the fair access to land also has NOTHING to do with the sharing of manufacturer wealth, for the simple reason that (for example) my factory occupies less space that the % of the UK that would be attributable to me anyway. Therefore whatever I would pay in LVT would also be paid back to me as my citizens take.

You are therefore still left even after LVT with the same problem you started with.

[Boom Boom]

Neither do I bang on about other basic, established facts before discussing a matter.

By the way, the fair access to land also has NOTHING to do with the sharing of manufacturer wealth, for the simple reason that (for example) my factory occupies less space that the % of the UK that would be attributable to me anyway. Therefore whatever I would pay in LVT would also be paid back to me as my citizens take.

You are therefore still left even after LVT with the same problem you started with.

Why would all land be equally valued? You don't from a moment think it would be reasonable for an acre in Mayfair to be subject to the same levy as an acre in Peckham.

[Lone_Twin]

Exactly, but it doesn't stop people (yourself included) banging on about the low level scroungers first, then only getting to the land issue after a dozen pages.

Nobody owes me a living, but in absence of my fair access to the land, I'll expect to be recompensed to stop me from kicking up a stink. *

*I'm self-employed, but happy to take the tax credits. If I sit on my ****, I pay for it myself.

But with respect it doesn't stop others banging on about taking stuff of the other poor sods who are struggling to make stuff and employ people in the same environment before eventually getting to land.

There are unfair winners in this system but its not the business owner or the entrepreneur holding people down due to the fact s/he has got a BMW and they don't deserve a gun up the nose anymore than you do. And yet it is them who is going to be forced to compensate you out of their efforts.

[Stars]

But with respect it doesn't stop others banging on about taking stuff of the other poor sods who are struggling to make stuff and employ people in the same environment before eventually getting to land.

There are unfair winners in this system but its not the business owner or the entrepreneur holding people down due to the fact s/he has got a BMW and they don't deserve a gun up the nose anymore than you do. And yet it is them who is going to be forced to compensate you out of their efforts.

+1

Well said

[bogbrush]

Why would all land be equally valued? You don't from a moment think it would be reasonable for an acre in Mayfair to be subject to the same levy as an acre in Peckham.

Funny enough my factory isn't situated in Mayfair. In fact it isn't even sited in any highly populous city or town. And I don't live in a City (or even a small town for that matter).

Consequently, sounds like I may even be a net recipent of LVT.

[wonderpup]

We've had this discussion a few times, I'm afraid I don't really want to re-run it as you seem impervious to logic and more interested in regurgitating your set pieces no matter what the other side has to say. Its a bit boring tbh.

No logical deduction required- simply examine the stats for productivity, then for incomes and you will see that while productivity has risen most people's income has declined- with the notable exception of the top 1 or 2 percent, whose income has gone up significantly.

If the pie has got bigger while most people's share has got smaller while a few peoples share got much bigger- we don't need to apply much logic to work out where the increase in the pie went.

And the reason for this particular share out of the pie was that automation and outsourcing allow the business owners to capture more of the profits because they pay less out in wages. Not rocket science is it?

[Stars]

And the reason for this particular share out of the pie was that automation and outsourcing allow the business owners to capture more of the profits because they pay less out in wages. Not rocket science is it?

If everyone else is also outsourcing and automating, then they have to compete by providing more at a lower price

So the choice for the employer becomes - automate / outsource or go bankrupt

Still no sign of that pie

[wonderpup]

No, it's the precise way of saying that you live in luxury and relative leisure because of technology. Are you trying to say this is a disadvantage to you?

No. I am trying to say that a sufficiently advanced technology is a threat to the stability of the free market system.

It's really very simple;

The objective of Capital is to reduce costs and maximize profits- including the costs of employing labour.

The objective of labour is to maximise wages.

If either side wins it's game over- for the following reasons;

If Capital eliminates wages there is no consumption and the economy eventually dies.

If Labour takes all the profits as wages there is no money for investment and the economy eventually dies.

So in order for the free market to function there must be a balance of power between capital and labour.

So we can see that a technology that was able to cost effectively displace the labour of Mr and Mrs average- the bulk of the population- would eliminate wages and kill the economy through lack of effective demand.

People working more to stay alive has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with your state and the rent industry it supports.

But the current system demands that people work while at the same time developing the technology to eliminate the need for them to do so- this is a contradiction.

If we truly belived in full employment we would limit labour saving technology- the fact that we do not do this means that we do not belive in full employemnt- yet we condemn those who cannot find work to a life of poverty and social disparagement. This is a long term formula for social unrest as the number of excluded people reaches critical mass.

Note: I'm not saying we should limit labour saving technology- just pointing out that the goals of full employment and business efficiency are in conflict.

We make the oddest demand of our young today- we tell them they must work- while our employers do everything in their power to automate and outsource jobs- what the f*ck is that? What sense are they to make of this self contradiction?

[Boom Boom]

If everyone else is also outsourcing and automating, then they have to compete by providing more at a lower price

So the choice for the employer becomes - automate / outsource or go bankrupt

Still no sign of that pie

You make my argument for me. Capitalism seems designed to destroy itself. The dynamic you describe can only lead to the collapse of our economies.

[wonderpup]

If everyone else is also outsourcing and automating, then they have to compete by providing more at a lower price

So the choice for the employer becomes - automate / outsource or go bankrupt

Still no sign of that pie

The pie is contained in the skills scarcity claims of those in control of the system- they are able to enforce a pseudo scarcity on their labour across the spectrum that in turn forms a floor on price drops while enabling them to significantly increase their income.

This crony based cartel on top incomes explains the curious anomaly that globalised labour markets have decreased scarcity in almost all sectors except top executives, whose relative scarcity (they claim) has somehow increased as a result of globalised labour markets.

This is how the Bankers justify their huge incomes- a variant of the 'rare skills' narrative- but the same basic fiction is employed throughout the economy to facilitate looting at the top. Even public sector employees ape this scarcity meme to justify their pay.

[Stars]

You make my argument for me. Capitalism seems designed to destroy itself. The dynamic you describe can only lead to the collapse of our economies.

Describe the inevitable collapse

[Stars]

The pie is contained in the skills scarcity claims of those in control of the system- they are able to enforce a pseudo scarcity on their labour across the spectrum that in turn forms a floor on price drops while enabling them to significantly increase their income.

This crony based cartel on top incomes explains the curious anomaly that globalised labour markets have decreased scarcity in almost all sectors except top executives, whose relative scarcity (they claim) has somehow increased as a result of globalised labour markets.

This is how the Bankers justify their huge incomes- a variant of the 'rare skills' narrative- but the same basic fiction is employed throughout the economy to facilitate looting at the top. Even public sector employees ape this scarcity meme to justify their pay.

If saying 'i'm an executaive" would convince someone to pay you a huge salary, then why don't you do it?

This is drifting away from making any recognisable point into daydreamy assertions

Employers have to compete for the attention of customers in exactly the same way employees have to compete for the attention of employers.

[SNACR]

We make the oddest demand of our young today- we tell them they must work- while our employers do everything in their power to automate and outsource jobs- what the f*ck is that? What sense are they to make of this self contradiction?

They should devote their time and energy to learning how to design and repair automated manufacturing equipment?

[Boom Boom]

They should devote their time and energy to learning how to design and repair automated manufacturing equipment?

A machine setup that replaces hundreds of workers might require maintenance and monitoring by 1 maybe 2 people. Not a good recipe for full employment is it. The automated checkouts in supermarkets are a good example. One supervisor can monitor a whole bank of automated checkouts, and the more people become conditioned to using them, the easier the transition will be to using them exclusively. How many people do you think are employed nationwide working open checkouts?

[Stars]

A machine setup that replaces hundreds of workers might require maintenance and monitoring by 1 maybe 2 people. Not a good recipe for full employment is it. The automated checkouts in supermarkets are a good example. One supervisor can monitor a whole bank of automated checkouts, and the more people become conditioned to using them, the easier the transition will be to using them exclusively. How many people do you think are employed nationwide working open checkouts?

so you predict mass unemployment?

but wouldn't that mean large numbers of people with plenty of spare time who want goods but don't have them?

[Boom Boom]

so you predict mass unemployment?

but wouldn't that mean large numbers of people with plenty of spare time who want goods but don't have them?

We have that exact situation now.

[SNACR]

A machine setup that replaces hundreds of workers might require maintenance and monitoring by 1 maybe 2 people. Not a good recipe for full employment is it. The automated checkouts in supermarkets are a good example. One supervisor can monitor a whole bank of automated checkouts, and the more people become conditioned to using them, the easier the transition will be to using them exclusively. How many people do you think are employed nationwide working open checkouts?

Actually, I'm having a bit of bother with my egg sucking technique at the moment, any tips?

[Stars]

We have that exact situation now.

Yes

I thought you were suggesting something exceptional was going to happen. An inevitable collapse

[Boom Boom]

Actually, I'm having a bit of bother with my egg sucking technique at the moment, any tips?

Ask your Grandmother. Now, about the question I asked, you have any ideas?

[Boom Boom]

Yes

I thought you were suggesting something exceptional was going to happen. An inevitable collapse

Rome was neither built, nor did it fall, in a single day.

[bogbrush]

The pie is contained in the skills scarcity claims of those in control of the system- they are able to enforce a pseudo scarcity on their labour across the spectrum that in turn forms a floor on price drops while enabling them to significantly increase their income.

This crony based cartel on top incomes explains the curious anomaly that globalised labour markets have decreased scarcity in almost all sectors except top executives, whose relative scarcity (they claim) has somehow increased as a result of globalised labour markets.

This is how the Bankers justify their huge incomes- a variant of the 'rare skills' narrative- but the same basic fiction is employed throughout the economy to facilitate looting at the top. Even public sector employees ape this scarcity meme to justify their pay.

You can't do any of that stuff in a free market. You only get paid what people are willing to offer for the things you offer them. You can't bluff, or negotiate your pay, or fiddle your scarcity of skill or any of that other cr@p you're going on about; all you can do is offer your goods and services.

Yet you hate free markets and think they do awful things.

Strange contradiction.

[bogbrush]

A machine setup that replaces hundreds of workers might require maintenance and monitoring by 1 maybe 2 people. Not a good recipe for full employment is it. The automated checkouts in supermarkets are a good example. One supervisor can monitor a whole bank of automated checkouts, and the more people become conditioned to using them, the easier the transition will be to using them exclusively. How many people do you think are employed nationwide working open checkouts?

Obviously the former checkout staff need to find other things to offer people, like they did when they abolished the job of collecting dogsh1t to tan hides.

Or maybe you think they shouldn't have come up with new systems to tan hides because it caused unemployment?

[Boom Boom]

You can't do any of that stuff in a free market. You only get paid what people are willing to offer for the things you offer them. You can't bluff, or negotiate your pay, or fiddle your scarcity of skill or any of that other cr@p you're going on about; all you can do is offer your goods and services.

Yet you hate free markets and think they do awful things.

Strange contradiction.

Because the capitalist imperative means free markets do not stay free for long. No true capitalists wants a competitive market place, and so the trick is to ingrain your advantage, and use every tactic at your disposal to destroy or greatly undermine your competition. Free markets begin to collapse the moment the freedom they grant is exercised.

[Boom Boom]

Obviously the former checkout staff need to find other things to offer people, like they did when they abolished the job of collecting dogsh1t to tan hides.

Or maybe you think they shouldn't have come up with new systems to tan hides because it caused unemployment?

I embrace technological advances to a degree that you could barely begin to appreciate. This also makes me very aware of how quickly we're moving to a point in which what the average person has to offer by way of work will be essentially worthless. Your lack of understanding of the technologies behind this cataclysm are the reason you see this issue as one out in the long grass. You biggest problem is that you seem to think the scope of human need is infinite, and no matter how much the requirement for human labour atrophies, something will always come along to replace the jobs lost. My argument has always been we need to implement a citizen's wage. As early as 2020-2025 the required size of the human workforce will have halved. This isn't some fanciful science fiction scenario either, these are projections put out in research papers from reputable organisations.