Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Mcdonalds Replacing Humans With Terminals


Recommended Posts

As I said the working week was cut and as the working week was cut standards of living improved they did not go down but up

The same thing can happen again but we have been led to beleive that if we enjoy a cut in the working week we will have to pay for it with a cut in our standard of living . So that keeps many on the tread mill of the five day week , while millions have fallen by the wayside .

To keep the pretence up the powers that be i.e. govenment , media and the guy next door moaning about the guy up the road who does not work tell us in many different ways about the lazy feckless who should be working like us in order to keep us in our place.

if you cut the working week to 4 days, and someone else does exactly the same job as you did for 1 day - the overall economy would be the same but you would see a drop in your standard of living, or more accurately, you claim on resources within the economy.

now if a machine could do that job. your allocation of resources could technically be the same, but you work 1 day less.

Edited by mfp123
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

if you cut the working week to 4 days, and someone else does exactly the same job as you did for 1 day - the overall economy would be the same but you would see a drop in your standard of living, or more accurately, you claim on resources within the economy.

now if a machine could do that job. your allocation of resources could technically be the same, but you work 1 day less.

But we wouldn't be paying unemployment benefits / housing benefit / council tax benefit etc as there wouldn't be 20% unemployment so therefore you'd be able to reduce the amount of people's income taken in tax.

And also lets not forget the entire new boost to the economy that an extra days leisure per person per week would bring.

A "standard of living" is surely measurable in far more ways than the pre-tax wage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LVT is rent.

And rent is a tax. 'Private' landlords are the lowest level of government. They exercise certain rights over the land they own, particularly the tax raising power we like to call rent, but are are subordinate to local, regional, national and supernational government.

The difference between paying rent to a landlord, and a land-value tax to central government is that I get to vote for central government. I do not get to vote for my landlord.

However small, it is always better to take power from the unelected and unaccountable and give it to the elected and accountable.

Ultimately, it would be far better to have no-one collecting rent, but that would require people to abandon their belief in magic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't much to add to Injin's response.

Slave trading clearly isn't free market, as you're having to coerce the slaves with threats of force.

By suggesting that a free market doesn't rule out the mincing of people, shows a complete misunderstanding of what a free market is.

EDIT: To add, if you had suggested that trading cattle wasn't a free market, you'd have been onto something interesting - do we only value the free will of humans in a free market? The slave/mincing people stuff is nonsense though.

I can't really add anything new to wonderpup's post, but the concept of free market does not say anything about what is being traded. In this instance, free means free to trade without government interference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to happen.

Not as long as your next door neighbour (India, China) will work 80 hours a week for a bowl of rice to avoid starvation.

Will happen when my next door neighbours in India , China also demand a cut to 50 hours and then follow on fro more cuts and a higher standard of living than a bowl of rice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you cut the working week to 4 days, and someone else does exactly the same job as you did for 1 day - the overall economy would be the same but you would see a drop in your standard of living, or more accurately, you claim on resources within the economy.

now if a machine could do that job. your allocation of resources could technically be the same, but you work 1 day less.

No

As well as what post 136 answered you with I would also like to add the fear of unemployment holds the economy back . Know many people myself included ( I want a new car this year but won't buy ) who will not spend money we have which would grow the economy due to fear of unemployment . If the working week was cut the work shared out and fear of losing ones job was replaced with thinking when I lose this job there is another one I can get will give me and others the sentiment to spend more money which in turn creates more jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will happen when my next door neighbours in India , China also demand a cut to 50 hours and then follow on fro more cuts and a higher standard of living than a bowl of rice.

If he does his job will be offshored to Vietnam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he does his job will be offshored to Vietnam.

You have been hookwinked into thinking that there is no choice . Outsourcing and insourcing have happend for hundreds of years , but in this time more and more poor people across the globe have enjoyed better not worse standards of living.

If those in India and China demand more for their work which they are already doing they will be able to buy the goods that they produce .

You can carry on your theroy that whoever demands more will see their jobs outsourced to somewhere cheaper , but at the end of the day there is no point in mass production if the masses cannot afford the goods. No one to afford the goods means on profits for the companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been hookwinked into thinking that there is no choice . Outsourcing and insourcing have happend for hundreds of years , but in this time more and more poor people across the globe have enjoyed better not worse standards of living.

If those in India and China demand more for their work which they are already doing they will be able to buy the goods that they produce .

You can carry on your theroy that whoever demands more will see their jobs outsourced to somewhere cheaper , but at the end of the day there is no point in mass production if the masses cannot afford the goods. No one to afford the goods means on profits for the companies.

You could always lend them the money, backed by some asset...... erm maybe houses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are benefits then?

Sops to stop change.

I can accept that there is waste and malinvestment, but money is not just taken by the few and spent on their consumption. Our political system simply isn't that corrupted.

They are not identical situations by a long shot.

They are identical except for one thing -

One has better PR. Which you have fallen for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really add anything new to wonderpup's post, but the concept of free market does not say anything about what is being traded. In this instance, free means free to trade without government interference.

Any rational definition of free market must be free from all coercion, not just from the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to Amsterdam years ago - they had those funny little self service heated food snack shops - looked like a cross between a bank vault and a vending machine on a grand scale - put your money in and open the galss door to take the snack of your choice, which looked different (ish) but tasted pretty much the same.

Surprised it has taken them this long to take that step - very small number of sales lines and large throughput - far easier than a supermarket system.

ahh = febo - those croquettes are irresistable.

(Febo literally means 'Fat Bite' - so true)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say if employment is approaching 100%, the worst paying, least attractive jobs are going to be forced into automation. This appears to be the obvious conclusion to me.

Unfortunately it isn't the worst paying and least attractive jobs that are automated - in fact there is more benefit in automating the best paying jobs to maximise profit.

Skilled craft - probably one of the most satisfying jobs a human can do, has been mostly automated because it was easy to automate i.e. easy to replicate (and improve) human movement with basic mechanics, and because it was well paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been hookwinked into thinking that there is no choice . Outsourcing and insourcing have happend for hundreds of years , but in this time more and more poor people across the globe have enjoyed better not worse standards of living.

If those in India and China demand more for their work which they are already doing they will be able to buy the goods that they produce .

You can carry on your theroy that whoever demands more will see their jobs outsourced to somewhere cheaper , but at the end of the day there is no point in mass production if the masses cannot afford the goods. No one to afford the goods means on profits for the companies.

:)

Facts contradict your hopes. The offshoring of Indian and Chinese jobs to Vietnam as wages rise was not a theory.

A way I use to look at this is with thermodynamics: 10ml of 50C water mixed with 50ml 5C water. See what the resulting temperature is: not very hot. The realignment is and will be very painful to us.

Whether you like it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any rational definition of free market must be free from all coercion, not just from the state.

The market is free from all coercion, it's the goods traded that wouldn't be but that doesn't come into the definition. It's like saying a market for burgers isn't free because the cows were coerced into being the product traded. The product's opinion doesn't come into the definition of a market.

Edited by _w_
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bilge.

A free market is a venue where people can refuse offers made without getting hurt or physically attacked. Slaves rather obviously don't fit into a free market.

The point is that the slave markets operated according to exactly that principle- slave traders could refuse offers, price discovery was present- all the functions of a freemarket were present.

Yet this fact did not impede the gross abuse of human beings involved- in fact it facilitated it.

So to say that 'free markets' and human liberty are in some way interdepedant is clearly a false claim- the slave trade is the ultimate commoditization of human beings for the purposes of exploitation- by the free market.

You are carefull always to limit your definition of coercion to phyisical violence- this is-in my opinion- a cheap trick to evade the real contradiction at the root of your thinking;

In order for coercion to exist you must accept that the consequence of choice limits the freedom to choose- but- if you accept this you must also accept that coercion then consists not simply of the threat of physical violence but the threat of any negative outcome.

If you- on the other hand- wish to claim that freedom to choose is not constrained by the consequences of choice then coercion cannot exist- since no threatened consequence could be defined as constraining choice- including threats of physical violence.

In the real world almost no choice is a free choice- we are all constrained by the consequnces of our choices. The only truly free market is the one you have no need to particiapte in.

This is because embedded in the notion of being free to reject any offer is the ultimate abilty to reject all offers. And in very many cases this freedom is not available- people who need to work, for example, cannot reject all offers of employment- in which case their 'choice' is not a free one but a coerced one, the coercion being their need to work.

To limit coercion to the simplistic application of physical force is to construct a cartoon reality- in the real world coercion takes on many forms and not all involve hitting people- some can be as passive as sitting on desperately needed resources until compliance is obtained.

Edited by wonderpup
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that the slave markets operated according to exactly that principle- slave traders could refuse offers, price discovery was present- all the functions of a freemarket were present.

Yet this fact did not impede the gross abuse of human beings involved- in fact it facilitated it.

So to say that 'free markets' and human liberty are in some way interdepedant is clearly a false claim- the slave trade is the ultimate commoditization of human beings for the purposes of exploitation- by the free market.

You are carefull always to limit your definition of coercion to phyisical violence- this is-in my opinion- a cheap trick to evade the real contradiction at the root of your thinking;

In order for coercion to exist you must accept that the consequence of choice limits the freedom to choose- but- if you accept this you must also accept that coercion then consists not simply of the threat of physical violence but the threat of any negative outcome.

If you- on the other hand- wish to claim that freedom to choose is not constrained by the consequences of choice then coercion cannot exist- since no threatened consequence could be defined as constraining choice- including threats of physical violence.

In the real world almost no choice is a free choice- we are all constrained by the consequnces of our choices. The only truly free market is the one you have no need to particiapte in.

This is because embedded in the notion of being free to reject any offer is the ultimate abilty to reject all offers. And in very many cases this freedom is not available- people who need to work, for example, cannot reject all offers of employment- in which case their 'choice' is not a free one but a coerced one, the coercion being their need to work.

To limit coercion to the simplistic application of physical force is to construct a cartoon reality- in the real world coercion takes on many forms and not all involve hitting people- some can be as passive as sitting on desperately needed resources until compliance is obtained.

Bilge.

For a free market to be applied rationally, it must apply to all things in the same class.

Unless you know of some biological difference between slaves and slave owners, there is no free market in slavery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.