Quote (thesnipa @ 17 Feb 2021 12:57)

this simply isnt true. almost all machines in the automation industry are fabricated partially by hand and assembled by hand. sure lazers and waterjets and cnc punches/lathes are used, but every part more or less is handled by hand in fab. and hand assembled.

99% of the automation industry isnt Tesla with robots.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 17 2021 03:02pm)

My assumption is that "worker productivity" is basically profit/worker.

A worker using a computer is producing far more than a worker in the 70's. Just because a worker is using a tool doesn't mean the worker isn't producing using the tool. When I use a fancy instrument to get a measurement in an hour rather than a week, I'm producing a lot more even after you factor that the instrument cost 100k, since that 100k is spread over the lifetime of the instrument.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 17 2021 03:03pm)

Is it your position that it would require the displaced 13 million food industry workers to assemble food automation machines? If so, that would be fantastic! Higher paying jobs that result in incredibly expanded productivity. The numbers, however, don't appear to exist that support it.

Dell had the human element cut out completely from the assembly and imaging of their computers 40 years ago. I don't buy into the idea that 99% of assembling isn't "like Tesla". Tesla didn't come up with the concept or even perfect the concept. To some extent, much as with Dell through the years, some human element in sales, support, and service exists. But even there, the majority of sales, service, and support has been outsourced to nations that don't respect our minimum wage, for higher profit.

I think our current policies, laws, and regulations insure that minimum wage increases will not only reduce jobs overall due to a shift to automation, but will go further to insure that what jobs remain are outsourced en masse to cheaper labor markets.

Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 17 2021 03:10pm)

sure, if we think of work as simply a payment for production. i tend to think of it more as compensation for the wear on your body and mind. and that carries a bit more weight when we consider menial boring tasks pay less even if they product hundreds of thousands of dollars in products, while difficult tasks that are mentally taxing tend to pay more even if its an entire year working on a single account. likewise in the unskilled labor pool physically taxing jobs like construction worker pay far better than a fork lift operator in a factory.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 17 2021 04:02pm)

My assumption is that "worker productivity" is basically profit/worker.

A worker using a computer is producing far more than a worker in the 70's. Just because a worker is using a tool doesn't mean the worker isn't producing using the tool. When I use a fancy instrument to get a measurement in an hour rather than a week, I'm producing a lot more even after you factor that the instrument cost 100k, since that 100k is spread over the lifetime of the instrument.

Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 17 2021 03:19pm)

Not necessarily, because productivity is also passed along to the end consumer in the form of cheaper goods.

The worker is producing more, but they are not worth more. While some jobs demand an increased skillset (see : IT, finance), and pay has therefore increased, it is not true in a whole host of lower white collar / blue-collar professions, where the skillset if anything is easier to obtain, and the productivity is entirely the result of the company investing in IT or technological advancements more broadly.

To use a simple example, if I pay you $10 / hr to mow my grass, and it takes to 10 hours, your total pay is $100. If I provide you with a tractor, and you mow it in 1 hour, do I owe you $100? There would be little incentive for me to ever invest in the technology to let you do your work faster. And you would have very little leverage, because someone else would be happy to take $10, or a little more or less, to do the same job that requires functionally the same skill.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 17 2021 04:20pm)

I'm talking specifically in the graph that they calculated "productivity" as profit/worker.

Quote (thesnipa @ 17 Feb 2021 13:10)

fully automated production lines are a thing, but fully automated automation production lines arent.

Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 17 2021 03:33pm)

Bit confused why i keep seeing my leftist friends post graphs and stats comparing minimum wage and productivity in America.

gains in productivity are due to both automation of tasks of workers and computers/internet.

While i can see the argument that requirement skills for computer work necessitate a general pay raise they also largely are replacing analog skills. programs on computers replace accounting knowledge, shipping knowledge, and many other skills that workers needed on hand pre-computers in the workplace.

and automating tasks makes the workers job easier, and by proxy makes the worker less valuable to the overall production. even with R&D loopholes for automation (a thing im entirely against) companies still spend money to put those machines in place. costs that in theory are spent in lieu of pay raises to an extent.

inflation as a rate of min wage increase makes sense, entirely. even without taking accounting in the picture, companies make a profit and inflation is slow enough not to break the economy. but production as a benchmark for min wage increase doesnt just seem nonsensical, but self defeating as an argument.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 17 2021 03:24pm)

Ah, I don't know if I misread or simply misunderstood what you were saying. On this point, I'll defer to your experience. On the flipside, moving forward, assuming a mass demand for automated production, wouldn't the pattern be fully automated automation production lines comes next?

It's a strange discussion, and one of the basic reasons why I don't necessarily oppose the concept of UBI, though such is not yet necessary.