Learning Manufacturing Robot

[wonderpup]

It's not coercion,, it's nature. I accept that nobody else owes me anything

No you don't. You have an absolute expectation that those around you will behave in accordance with the legal structure that protects you and your property- there's nothing 'natural' about it.- it's called a society.

The truth is you want to assert some darwinain purity when it comes to your gains, but be protected by all manner of state and legal structures to support your position- including the limited liability screen which you seem quite happy to avail yourself of.

It's like a guy who goes camping in the wilderness with thousands of pounds worth of high tech kit on his back imagining that he's davey crocket or something- king of the wild frontier.

Your business is a creature of the legal and social context in which you operate- to pretend you somehow float free of this support system is laughable.

So if this system contains structural flaws that advantage some and disadvantage others, to question this system is not to deny 'nature' as you seem to believe- it is to question a human artefact that may or may not require modification and/or improvement.

[Boom Boom]

No you don't. You have an absolute expectation that those around you will behave in accordance with the legal structure that protects you and your property- there's nothing 'natural' about it.- it's called a society.

The truth is you want to assert some darwinain purity when it comes to your gains, but be protected by all manner of state and legal structures to support your position- including the limited liability screen which you seem quite happy to avail yourself of.

It's like a guy who goes camping in the wilderness with thousands of pounds worth of high tech kit on his back imagining that he's davey crocket or something- king of the wild frontier.

Your business is a creature of the legal and social context in which you operate- to pretend you somehow float free of this support system is laughable.

So if this system contains structural flaws that advantage some and disadvantage others, to question this system is not to deny 'nature' as you seem to believe- it is to question a human artefact that may or may not require modification and/or improvement.

Exactly. I'm bored of haughty Capitalistas puffing their chests out and declaring themselves in a position of power purely as a consequence of some natural order. What they think is a jungle is actually a greenhouse

[Boom Boom]

This problem of labour prices being bid up in areas of high employment is very easily fixed.

All you do, is get a bunch of do-gooding hand-wringers to advocate a minimum wage.

No-one can argue against it without being portrayed as mean-spirited and better paid people can pretend they're doing their bit to help people on low incomes. Another chunk of middle-income earners pretend to like it because they want to help people who're worse off but secretly like it as they mistakenly believe they're causing the higher-income group of business owners and senior executives to become poorer.

The result of this is you can then have a huge swathe of your working population on exactly the same, minimum, wage throughout the country regardless of the rate of employment/unemployment in a geographic area.

The flaw in your argument is that presumably labour shortages should have pushed wages for entry level jobs significantly above minimum wage, yet we don't see this happening. Why should the imposition of a *minimum* standard for remuneration prevent remuneration exceeding that level where market forces dictate? There is also the issue that we are unlikely to ever experience labour shortages again in the UK. With immigration still running largely unchecked, and technology removing people from the workforce faster than it create new opportunities, there is little likelihood of a shortage of human labour.

[Boom Boom]

I'd say you were confusing the creation and acquisition of wealth with Newton's third law of every action having an equal, and opposite, reaction. Someone making themselves wealthy doesn't axiomatically make someone else poor.

It's perfectly possible for a whole society to be poor without making anyone, anywhere rich as a consequence of the poverty.

Care to give an example of one person getting rich without the some section of society losing out in some way?

[SNACR]

The flaw in your argument is that presumably labour shortages should have pushed wages for entry level jobs significantly above minimum wage, yet we don't see this happening. Why should the imposition of a *minimum* standard for remuneration prevent remuneration exceeding that level where market forces dictate? There is also the issue that we are unlikely to ever experience labour shortages again in the UK. With immigration still running largely unchecked, and technology removing people from the workforce faster than it create new opportunities, there is little likelihood of a shortage of human labour.

No, that's not my argument at all. The National Minimum Wage has created, and continually swallows up more job roles as, 'minimum wage jobs' these then pay the minimum wage nationally regardless of employment levels in any particular region.

And for the umpteenth time I paid significantly more than the minimum wage when it was introduced, all on my greedy self-interested own without any helpful nanny state guidance.

I now pay minimum wage as almost all low-skilled retail jobs have now been devoured by the minimum wage job title shorthand and permanently stigmatised as such.

[SNACR]

Care to give an example of one person getting rich without the some section of society losing out in some way?

Designing and building a hydroelectric generator and exporting it.

[Boom Boom]

No, that's not my argument at all. The National Minimum Wage has created, and continually swallows up more job roles as, 'minimum wage jobs' these then pay the minimum wage nationally regardless of employment levels in any particular region.

And for the umpteenth time I paid significantly more than the minimum wage when it was introduced, all on my greedy self-interested own without any helpful nanny state guidance.

I now pay minimum wage as almost all low-skilled retail jobs have now been devoured by the minimum wage job title shorthand and permanently stigmatised as such.

And again, why is this possible when surely region shortages would force employers to pay much more? I don't see how having an established minimum prevents market forced pushing wages higher where said forces dictate. Your argument comes across as a convoluted justification for lowering the wages you pay.

[Boom Boom]

Designing and building a hydroelectric generator and exporting it.

No. You're taking money from an existing energy concern. If none exists you're introducing electricity to an area which means many form of manual labour from which people earned an income are effectively obsolete.

[SNACR]

And again, why is this possible when surely region shortages would force employers to pay much more? I don't see how having an established minimum prevents market forced pushing wages higher where said forces dictate. Your argument comes across as a convoluted justification for lowering the wages you pay.

Er, well evidently regional shortages (which do still exist, particularly in the SE and some other areas) are clearly not forcing wages for these jobs up despite and, in fact, quite likely because of the minimum wage policy

There's not really an argument just a statement of the fact I paid more than the minimum wage and industry average prior to the introduction of the minimum wage. Since its introduction I can pay minimum wage nationally regardless of regional labour scarcity. I'm suggesting these facts are not unrelated and there has been an undeniable branding of almost all low-skilled jobs as minimum wage Mcjobs.

No. You're taking money from an existing energy concern. If none exists you're introducing electricity to an area which means many form of manual labour from which people earned an income are effectively obsolete.

This is about as dim as the night time illumination in the country you're trying to deprive of the means to produce electricity, because you can't tolerate the idea anyone might receive larger financial rewards, for any work, than you do.

[bogbrush]

No you don't. You have an absolute expectation that those around you will behave in accordance with the legal structure that protects you and your property- there's nothing 'natural' about it.- it's called a society.

The truth is you want to assert some darwinain purity when it comes to your gains, but be protected by all manner of state and legal structures to support your position- including the limited liability screen which you seem quite happy to avail yourself of.

It's like a guy who goes camping in the wilderness with thousands of pounds worth of high tech kit on his back imagining that he's davey crocket or something- king of the wild frontier.

Your business is a creature of the legal and social context in which you operate- to pretend you somehow float free of this support system is laughable.

So if this system contains structural flaws that advantage some and disadvantage others, to question this system is not to deny 'nature' as you seem to believe- it is to question a human artefact that may or may not require modification and/or improvement.

We all pay our protection money; if there was no system of law around I can assure you we still would. Property rights get defended in either case, and there's no need for heroes. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of creating wealth to feed oneself.

You're definitely a fan of Options 1 and 2, aren't you?

[bogbrush]

Care to give an example of one person getting rich without the some section of society losing out in some way?

21st Century AD Britain compared to 21st Century BC Britain?

Unless you suggest we are at the same net level of wealth.

[bogbrush]

Actually, it does more than 'go up''.

My question was, at full employment, how does the price adjust.

So not 'approaching' full employment, but AT full employment.

What does your graph tell you now?

It tells me it goes up until demand falls, at which there isn't a shortage any more.

[Saberu]

True. Shows the importance of good manners, decent appearance, references and patience while you build up a good reputation.

None of those require capital, just persistence and a clear head.

I suggest we use Unemployed Youth as an experiment. He seems to be having trouble finding a job yet also seems intelligent so I have already suggested it to him. I might even make a thread tracking his progress if he agrees to it.

I do think it's possible to do, but firstly he needs a car to drive around a lawn mower, a grass stripper (hand tool for cutting grass) and some weeding utensils.

I put forth the following marketing strategies for a lawn mowing service-

• First cut for free, and free window cleaning service for your first purchase (ie with the second cut)

• 25% discount for regular customers

• Use a company name and introduce yourself as the [city name] Area Manager, you will seem to come from a bigger company and it looks more professional.

• Wear a suite when going out marketing yourself, if not then dress very smartly. For the lawn mowing itself try and get a uniform, green would probably go well for this outfit. Just like above, this depersonalises your identity and makes you seem more trusting.

• Have very cool looking business cards and give them to everyone at the high street. Also have flyers to post through letter boxes.

• Tell the customer you are offering 'recession proof prices' then offer a low price for example 20 pounds, which I think is reasonable considering travel time, expense and mowing time. so 15 for regular customers.

• Put your business name and phone number down the sides of your car. Free branding/ advertising! And you seem more professional when making house visits.

Wow.. I think if he followed all of those points to the letter he would not only be earning money but probably more than a minimum wage job would pay plus it's cash in hand. Ok bogbrush I admit it's very possible, but how many of our unemployed would do all of the above points?

If Unemployed Youth read this I wonder if he would have thought of doing all those points. After all most people don't realise how important image is.

5 lawns per day would be 2250/ month. You'd need to be earning 40k gross salary from a job to match that. Though I admit lawn mowing is seasonal work.

[babesagainstmachines]

But that surplus is created by people efficiently creating large ammounts of wealth, in which we all get a share. They do it because they get to take a good chunk of all that extra stuff that is being created.

This stuff doesnt just fall out of the sky: entreprenuers, capitalists, genuine wealth creators (not banke, rentiers and spivs) create it or help cause it to be created.

No, the labour surplus is created by people's skills being made obsolete through technology. We increasingly don't all get to share in that wealth. Have you not noticed society becoming more unequal.

But if robots are doing everything, then stuff basically does fall out of the sky. It's not today, but it's getting inexorably closer, and the current system simply cannot cope with it unless taxation on the richest is massively increased.

In order for you to continue to enjoy your "labour surplus" and not be "coerced" into doing things to survive what incentive are you offering for the people you want to make it possible for you?

Why won't they just not bother?

Why do you think I should have to offer something to anyone? Why should I just take what I want? My ancestor's were kicked off the land, why shouldn't I just take some of it back and ignore everyone else?

[Big Orange]

Didn't Henry Ford once say that factory machinery couldn't buy his cars? And long ago in the Roman Empire during the height of the Principate, an engineer proposed an elaborate machine that could hew out and transport massive blocks of rock - Emperor Vespasian looked at the plans for the machine then remarked that he needed workers to be paid and slaves to be placated, so the machine was shelved.

[Riedquat]

Didn't Henry Ford once say that factory machinery couldn't buy his cars? And long ago in the Roman Empire during the height of the Principate, an engineer proposed an elaborate machine that could hew out and transport massive blocks of rock - Emperor Vespasian looked at the plans for the machine then remarked that he needed workers to be paid and slaves to be placated, so the machine was shelved.

And if that's still the case today (and it seems to be) then it's proof that we've lost the plot - no, that we never had it if it goes back that far. A system that relies on inefficiency is a bad system.

[tahoma]

Ah, another of 'those' topics.

Again, we see there are fundamentally two types of people in the world - those who want to enjoy the fruits of their own productivity, and those who want to enjoy the fruits of the productivity of others.

As for the great oppressed being 'forced' to live in slums, does it occur to anyone that these slums are only slums because these people live there in the first place? That environment is a manifestation of the capabilities of those people as a whole; a net result of their attitudes and abilities.

I do not deny that many of them could do better, but it is not evil capitalists or robots that hold them down. It is something else.

Corruption and/or bureaucracy, usually as one entity.

What better example could there be of Lagos. Did anyone see the Louis Theroux program the other night? What a farce. A country of vast area, mineral wealth and human resources, and they live in shacks with the few crumbling colonial buildings a fading hint of lasting human endeavor.

It is low level crime and oppression that holds these people down. The second anyone tries to rise above the mire, they are dragged down and 'taxed' by the local crime lord or government agent - who cares which? The net result is the same. Eeevil capitalists do not benefit from these people remaining poor.

And if the great masses rose up and siezed the means of production, the fine houses, the factories, the resources, what do you think it would all look like in a few years? A glimmering socialist utiopia, like so many on here fantasise about in between w*nks in their bedsit?

No, it would look like Lagos. A slum.

[babesagainstmachines]

Ah, another of 'those' topics.

Again, we see there are fundamentally two types of people in the world - those who want to enjoy the fruits of their own productivity, and those who want to enjoy the fruits of the productivity of others.

As for the great oppressed being 'forced' to live in slums, does it occur to anyone that these slums are only slums because these people live there in the first place? That environment is a manifestation of the capabilities of those people as a whole; a net result of their attitudes and abilities.

I do not deny that many of them could do better, but it is not evil capitalists or robots that hold them down. It is something else.

Corruption and/or bureaucracy, usually as one entity.

What better example could there be of Lagos. Did anyone see the Louis Theroux program the other night? What a farce. A country of vast area, mineral wealth and human resources, and they live in shacks with the few crumbling colonial buildings a fading hint of lasting human endeavor.

It is low level crime and oppression that holds these people down. The second anyone tries to rise above the mire, they are dragged down and 'taxed' by the local crime lord or government agent - who cares which? The net result is the same. Eeevil capitalists do not benefit from these people remaining poor.

And if the great masses rose up and siezed the means of production, the fine houses, the factories, the resources, what do you think it would all look like in a few years? A glimmering socialist utiopia, like so many on here fantasise about in between w*nks in their bedsit?

No, it would look like Lagos. A slum.

Ok Einstein, who produced the land?

[tahoma]

Ok Einstein, who produced the land?

No one, but only some had the nouse to exploit it. What do you want, a nation of subsidence farmers? Move to Zimbabwe, you'll love it.

True to type, you are trying to tangle concepts to bamboozle the opposition long enough to seize some sort of 'prize', produced by the effort of others.

It used to take about 95% of the population toiling away to produce enough food, now it takes less than 5%. Differentials in land ownership are a small price to pay.

[Saberu]

And if the great masses rose up and siezed the means of production, the fine houses, the factories, the resources, what do you think it would all look like in a few years? A glimmering socialist utiopia, like so many on here fantasise about in between w*nks in their bedsit?

No, it would look like Lagos. A slum.

Be careful as your post is indicting that things cannot be improved in the UK, and yet you have already mentioned corruption so you kind of contradict yourself.

I've never supported mass rule and I don't think overthrowing the current government would necessarily improve things, what we need is a cultural enlightenment/ edjukation for the masses until they are intelligent and selfless enough to peacefully bring about a new political party with less corruption.

Problem is the majority of people are SO out of touch with politics and just completely disinterested in it to the point where all the stuff we talk about goes over their heads so hoping the above to happen is a pipe dream. However morally speaking it should happen, and we should still support the cause as hopeless as it may seem.

[babesagainstmachines]

No one, but only some had the nouse to exploit it. What do you want, a nation of subsidence farmers? Move to Zimbabwe, you'll love it.

True to type, you are trying to tangle concepts to bamboozle the opposition long enough to seize some sort of 'prize', produced by the effort of others.

It used to take about 95% of the population toiling away to produce enough food, now it takes less than 5%. Differentials in land ownership are a small price to pay.

So kicking people off the land so they have no choice but give you a proportion of their productivity, or they will starve, is merely having nouse.

I think you will find in the economic system called capitalism, it is the people who OWN things who are given free reign to capture the productivity of others. True to your own type, you present the people who are oppressed as being the ones who are after something for nothing.

[feed]

No one, but only some had the nouse to exploit it.

Well not really, someone just got there first. Or more likely someones ancestors got there first.

But that aside, this is the very problem

It used to take about 95% of the population toiling away to produce enough food, now it takes less than 5%. Differentials in land ownership are a small price to pay.

A large proportion of the population do not have access to land, or capital and increasing they do not have access to payment for their labour.

[Stars]

No one, but only some had the nouse to exploit it.

No. As you cannot live outside the context of land, everyone alive was definitionally exploiting it.

So actually, you are talking about the people who had the 'nouse' to put a fence up and charge and entry fee for something they aren't providing.

[Traktion]

Didn't Henry Ford once say that factory machinery couldn't buy his cars? And long ago in the Roman Empire during the height of the Principate, an engineer proposed an elaborate machine that could hew out and transport massive blocks of rock - Emperor Vespasian looked at the plans for the machine then remarked that he needed workers to be paid and slaves to be placated, so the machine was shelved.

This is daft though, isn't it?

Sure, you need to pay people in order for them to buy stuff, but there is no point in them doing a harder job than is necessary to earn said money.

Moving to a modern day perspective of the Roman Empire example, the workers/wage slaves could be placated by TV, Internet and other cheap entertainment - many already are. Surely, we don't need to keep people 'busy' packing boxes, working tills or any other work which could be done by machines, for the sake of keeping them occupied? I'm sure they would rather be doing something else!

People need not toil any more than they need to. If they can provide themselves with cheap food, drink, clothing and entertainment, most of the problem is solved - we just need to free people from the burden of expensive shelter and people will get a taste of freedom. Cut out the rent seekers (by LVT, less planning restrictions etc) and this will be accomplished.

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but the problem is, only a few have access to the vast majority of it - the imbalance is huge. The same people continue to accumulate more at the expense of the poor/average person. If we are to progress towards a freer society, this needs to be tackled.

[Boom Boom]

21st Century AD Britain compared to 21st Century BC Britain?

Unless you suggest we are at the same net level of wealth.

You prove my point, you can't.