Quote (thesnipa @ 5 Feb 2020 23:51)
I work with fortune 500 companies, mid sized companies, and companies where they have like 4 employees. just this week ive done work for a beer company with over 500 employees in the plant, and a beer company with 4 employees total. its all companies, automation isn't a tool of the super rich corporations anymore. that's just a dated idea.
want to break me "confirmation bias" give me some examples of corporations or companies not willing to automate jobs instead of making worker life better, then demonstrate how common that is generally to forecast an effect on jobs. but of course we know you wont do that, and im working on so much data that you couldn't discount what im saying from across the pond anyways, even if you tried.
I wouldn't even have the same conversation with you if I thought you were for nominal changes and incremental implantation, but im just operating under the assumption you're closer to Bernie Sanders than something moderate on worker protection. I asked you for examples to maybe break this assumption, but all I got was platitudes and zero actual arguments to go off of for the conversation of worker protections. so again, examples?
this part right here is not only dead wrong it shows your disconnect with the topic in reality. its more profitable to automate NOW. today. as we speak. they're only laying people off slowly to avoid bad press in headlines like "General Mills lays off 300 people in one day". they (at least the fortune 500) have calculated plans on how many people to fire each year to avoid such press while also calculating profit losses to make it work.
I just don't think you get it, you seem to have only dealt with the topic in broad strokes and with no specific research into what automation is capable of today nor how quickly its progressing. I did a line of conveyors for a company who is in the fortune 500 and they ordered the entire thing with manually adjusted flow controls, the product are canned soup. when we asked if they'd like an option for a fully automated system with controls that require no humans to adjust them they took the option, spread out over 5 years, so they have time to slowly fire the people rather than deal with bad press. they could have replaced the people and made more money.
tbh u sound like Bernie sanders, not acknowledging how much of a knife edge we're walking right now and trying to downplay the dangers of automation. but if you'd like information on sectors that can be affected please give me examples of the types of changes you'd implement. and I, an expert in the field, can walk you through the effect of such policies. your "confirmation bias" and "anecdotal evidence" stuff wont work, im not making an argument, school is in session. you're a laymen in this discussion and im the expert. this is literally what I do for 50-60 hours a week for nearly 10 years now with data to draw on from the entirety of the American economy. we have a whole department in my company literally tracking the industry that are all econ majors that we have monthly or more meetings with to discuss these factors so we can make more money. yet here I am not wanting to make money because I understand it will hurt a lot of people. ruin whole sectors and create economic dead zones just like lead mining and coal mining left behind. guaranteeing more trumps, more MAGA hats, more civil unrest. but go ahead and keep beating that communist power to the workers drum if u like, im more than used to people not listening to the expert like im some climate scientist at a GOP rally.
well your strawmanning sure doesn't help there. i neither claimed nor implied that automation was a "tool of the super rich corporations" - what i said is that there are many types of jobs, of which there are millions, that are NOT directly affected or threatened by automation, that you just accept as casualties in your short sighted approach, heavily biased by anecdotal evidence.
you might be right suggesting that in some cases, maybe even the majority (which i highly doubt though), automation would be more profitable right now - but that is only true, if we just outright ignored the second part (in which you're once again inadvertently making my point for me) about the bad publicity, and the negative economic impact of that. to act like that part does somehow NOT belong in the calculation, in order to justify your little 'you don't know anything' narrative, is simply disingenuous.
i maintain my claim about the decisions being motivated by a cost benefit analysis. i concede that
'exploiting workers might be more profitable than automation for now' is probably too broad a claim - but by that standard, so is your claim that
'it's more profitable to automate NOW' - because guess what, if it were, corporations would do it - simple as that.
most importantly, it does not address my central point, which is that no matter which side we land on, it will always come down to a cold calculation to maximise profits - so creating a framework that protects workers and makes jobs that are not immediately threatened by automation sustainable and well-paid, is still a goal worth pursuing.
to be clear, i don't question your knowledge about the specifics of automation, what question is your motivation, your honesty, and your objectivity in this discussion. you're not arguing about the impact of trump's policies, or trying to accurately evaluate the state of the american economy (in the parts where you accidentally do it, you're actually supporting my points) - you're exclusively focused on trying to make me look bad (while ironically arguing strawmen, and making untenable sweeping claims, in order to do so).
but sure, keep your boring 'over the top condescending to cover the underlying undeserved sense of superiority' shtick up, keep ignoring the core points and get off on irrelevant specifics and tangents... apparently that's what YOU consider a good faith argument.
This post was edited by fender on Feb 5 2020 05:47pm