Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay, well term "unemployment" wasn't used in the question or the answer, so in a literal sense, you're right. But Obama was asked why businesses aren't hiring right now, and he blamed automation, specifically citing ATMs and check-in kiosks at airports. So I would say, yes, Obama blamed continued unemployment partly on ATMs and check-in kiosks. I think you're mistaken to say that conservatives are liars on that point.
It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.![]()
It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.![]()
no it isn't, ddi you watch the interview?
It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.![]()
no it isn't, ddi you watch the interview?
Like a 747 right over your head.![]()
It's his "I can see Russia from my house" moment.![]()
Taking a sentence out of context, and giving it an absurd spin to make the author appear silly is de rigor propaganda technique.
Nevertheless, automatic is, in part, one of the reasons that unemployment is and will continue to be a problem this nation faces.
When business is off, that is the time when businesses lay off workers. And when it looks like business will becoming back, that is the time to install automation such that the cost of doing business is reduced.
The problem of techology and automation reducing the need for human employment is an ongoing and growing problem.
When one looks at industrial output one cannot help but notice that while the total output stays essantially the same or even grows, the number of workers who are needed for that output is reduced.
The other metric that confirms this is the capitalization per worker.
AS techology replaces workers, the amount of capital it took to put the remaining workers to work increases.
Taking a sentence out of context, and giving it an absurd spin to make the author appear silly is de rigor propaganda technique.
Nevertheless, automatic is, in part, one of the reasons that unemployment is and will continue to be a problem this nation faces.
When business is off, that is the time when businesses lay off workers. And when it looks like business will becoming back, that is the time to install automation such that the cost of doing business is reduced.
The problem of techology and automation reducing the need for human employment is an ongoing and growing problem.
When one looks at industrial output one cannot help but notice that while the total output stays essantially the same or even grows, the number of workers who are needed for that output is reduced.
The other metric that confirms this is the capitalization per worker.
AS techology replaces workers, the amount of capital it took to put the remaining workers to work increases.
I can't believe you're actually defending his stupidity.
Good thing you cannot believe that because I wasn't defending anybody's anything.
I was expressing my opinion about the nature of techology and how it is effecting labor.
Anyone who's worked in a factory knows that some automation is a God-send, not a liability.
I used to work in the DIXIE CUP factory in Easton, Pa., lad. I think I know a little something about what its like to work in a factory.
Some functions are made safer with automation.
Yes, true. Not germane to the issue I was raising, but definitely true.
Others are designed to increase production. For example: A fire-wall used in building a Gas-package HVAC unit needs to have holes punched in specific points on the sheet of metal used. Somebody built a machine that can be programmed to punch the holes in the same exact place churning out hundreds of fire-walls in an 8 hr shift. Somebody has to still work the machine, change the program, pick up the sheet of metal, place it in the machine and stomp on the foot petal to begin the process. Instead of requiring a trained Sheetmetal mechanic to lay out every individual sheet with measuring tools and scribes the machine does it all for you.
Did it increase output? Yes it did. And by increasing per man hour output what is a sage owner likely to do if that increased output does not have a market?
Let some workers go?
Of course, he'd be a damned fool not to, wouldn't he?
A skilled technician has to maintain the machine when it breaks down. The function of building the part no longer take a skilled craftsman. Now anyone with half a brain can do the job. In the process you have also created a job that requires specialized skills that keep up with current technology just to maintain the punch machine. So instead of one worker you have at least two in it's place and much more productivity and consequentially a lot less error involved. This means instead of rebuilding the unit when it breaks, parts can be ordered and replaced. Somebody in a warehouse now has a job and a private HVAC repairman also has a job.
We can all invent situations where new techology leads to EXACTLY the same number of workers, lad.
That proves nothing whatever except that in some cases such thing do happen.
But the overall aspect of increased efficiency in an otherwise static market is a decrease in labor hours necessary to supple the demand.
You do understand such things as supply demand and efficiency do you not?
Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know the inner workings of companies. He's just looking at it from his perspective and he thinks he's so smart that he knows exactly the cause and effect of everything involved.
Here's what's going on between us.
You think I give a flying fuck about Obama.
I don't.
My point was addressing the impact of efficiency increases.
If Obama said that efficiency increases are leading to falling demand for workers, then he was right about that.
But really I don't care one way or the other what he said, or for that matter, how much you loathe the guy.
Save you partisan asshat comments for partisans.
I don't give a tinker's damn who you hate or why.
Taking a sentence out of context, and giving it an absurd spin to make the author appear silly is de rigor propaganda technique.
Nevertheless, automatic is, in part, one of the reasons that unemployment is and will continue to be a problem this nation faces.
When business is off, that is the time when businesses lay off workers. And when it looks like business will becoming back, that is the time to install automation such that the cost of doing business is reduced.
The problem of techology and automation reducing the need for human employment is an ongoing and growing problem.
When one looks at industrial output one cannot help but notice that while the total output stays essantially the same or even grows, the number of workers who are needed for that output is reduced.
The other metric that confirms this is the capitalization per worker.
AS techology replaces workers, the amount of capital it took to put the remaining workers to work increases.
Good thing you cannot believe that because I wasn't defending anybody's anything.
I was expressing my opinion about the nature of techology and how it is effecting labor.
I used to work in the DIXIE CUP factory in Easton, Pa., lad. I think I know a little something about what its like to work in a factory.
Yes, true. Not germane to the issue I was raising, but definitely true.
Did it increase output? Yes it did. And by increasing per man hour output what is a sage owner likely to do if that increased output does not have a market?
Let some workers go?
Of course, he'd be a damned fool not to, wouldn't he?
We can all invent situations where new techology leads to EXACTLY the same number of workers, lad.
That proves nothing whatever except that in some cases such thing do happen.
But the overall aspect of increased efficiency in an otherwise static market is a decrease in labor hours necessary to supple the demand.
You do understand such things as supply demand and efficiency do you not?
Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know the inner workings of companies. He's just looking at it from his perspective and he thinks he's so smart that he knows exactly the cause and effect of everything involved.
Here's what's going on between us.
You think I give a flying fuck about Obama.
I don't.
My point was addressing the impact of efficiency increases.
If Obama said that efficiency increases are leading to falling demand for workers, then he was right about that.
But really I don't care one way or the other what he said, or for that matter, how much you loathe the guy.
Save you partisan asshat comments for partisans.
I don't give a tinker's damn who you hate or why.
RLMAO!!!!!
Where in my post did it say I hated him??
Point it out to me.
I just said he doesn't know what he's talking about and proved it.
And nether do you. Lad.