patrick.net

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Robots have a great deal of advantages over immigrants.

Will robots stick black tar heroine capsules up their asses? I think not

Strategist says

Unions were the only reason the company went broke. If you know something others don't, please tell us.

https://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/vulture_capitalism_not_unions_killed_twinkies/ https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-vulture-capitalists-killed-twinkie
And lest you say I'm only posting leftist rags, here's Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/#71e868876f8c https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/11/21/why-hostess-had-to-die/#499a5f966dfe

NuttBoxer says

I was in a union once. Selling souvenirs at Qualcomm stadium when I was in college. I asked if I could not be in the union when I signed up for the job, and was told that wasn't an option. It wasn't a bad job, but never did figure out what that $4 a paycheck was doing for me that I couldn't have done for myself.

Did it pay more than minimum wage? If so, then that was the union’s work. A job like that would pay minimum wage otherwise. It’s not a great representation of a union job because the work is entirely unskilled and you were extremely replaceable. Also the profit margin was likely very low, meaning that there was little room for the union to negotiate for better wages or benefits. It’s surprising that such a job was unionized, but I suspect that the fact it was at a University was the reason.

All things considered, your experience as a union employee was about equivalent to saying you were once a pilot because you took a hang gliding lesson.

HappyGilmore says

Good, please point out where his lack of experience has allowed him to draw poor conclusions then.

Seems obvious, he equated unions with production.

HappyGilmore says

Unions lessen the inherent advantage businesses have over employees during compensation negotiations.

Ok, how would a union help me to get a better salary? What would they bring to the table that I don't know how to do myself?

NuttBoxer says

Seems obvious, he equated unions with production.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but he is backing his conclusions with data. Are you trying to imply your opinion beats his real data?

HappyGilmore says

You can thank them for the 40 hour work week, holidays, overtime pay

I'm salaried exempt, so no OT. The ideal work week according to SCRUM is 30 hours, so no thanks for overworking me. And America has significantly less holiday and vacation time than many other countries, so again, thanks for nothing.

I work in Software, a field that always pressures you to put in more time. What stops me from getting overworked? Not unions, good boundaries, a healthy outlook on what's important to me in life, and my commitment to many other things before money. Maybe lazy people need unions to do everything for them, but then again, the people who benefit most from socialism are typically the laziest.

Quigley says

Did it pay more than minimum wage?

Yes, but pay was based on commission, so not really relevant.

Quigley says

It’s not a great representation of a union job because the work is entirely unskilled and you were extremely replaceable.

As opposed to putting car parts together on an assembly line, making steel beams, or driving a truck? Yeah, a lot of years of college required for those professions. How is Detroit doing again..?

NuttBoxer says

The ideal work week according to SCRUM is 30 hours, so no thanks for overworking me. And America has significantly less holiday and vacation time than many other countries, so again, thanks for nothing.

Well, the workweek used to be 7 days/week 16-18 hours/day. And it sure as hell wasn't SCRUM that got it to 40 hours/week. And Europe is HIGHLY unionized so it stands to reason that they have more holiday and vacation time. You are making my argument for me.

http://www.sbctc.org/doc.asp?id=4463

NuttBoxer says

Maybe lazy people need unions to do everything for them, but then again, the people who benefit most from socialism are typically the laziest.

Yes, those lazy assholes that were working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week during the Industrial Revolution.

I see you've gone back to recycling your talking points, and have nothing new or relevant to back up your assertions based on political talking heads who have never held a real job in their lives. I'd love to live in your theoretical world where things work out exactly like you hypothesize them, but in real life I'll stick with counting on ME when I need to get something done, not some socialist organization who wants to dip their hands in my pocket for doing something I could easily do myself.

Another example. I know a family friend who has been a butcher at Von's for over 30 years. The family has not done any better financially because of his union, he is still having to work after retirement age, and he does not control his work life thanks to a union that can order him to strike at any moment, whether he can afford to or not.

Those of you who want to arm chair QB talking points, stay in your think tanks, and leave the real people alone. They don't need any more of your theoretical help that only benefits your next book/ makes you sound "intelligent" to people who have never had to experience any of your ideas first hand.

NuttBoxer says

I see you've gone back to recycling your talking points, and have nothing new or relevant to back up your assertions based on political talking heads who have never held a real job in their lives. I'd love to live in your theoretical world where things work out exactly like you hypothesize them, but in real life I'll stick with counting on ME when I need to get something done, not some socialist organization who wants to dip their hands in my pocket for doing something I could easily do myself.

So, let me recap. You have no data or even any opinions to refute ANYTHING that the sources I posted show.

All you can do is try to attack the author, and then attack me.

Try for better next time.

(fyi--you are welcome to do whatever you want with your life. I never once said otherwise. What I did say was that unions are a net positive on the economy)

NuttBoxer says

The family has not done any better financially because of his union

You have no idea what his financial situation would have been absent the union, so that statement is false.

HappyGilmore says

Heraclitusstudent says

What service jobs were automated?

anon_3b28c says

Hogwash. How many secretary's and operators were replaced by automated call attendants? How many managers have secretaries now after the computer age?

How many bank tellers have been replaced by ATMs?

How many checkers have been replace by auto-checkout terminals at big box stores?

I could go on and on. Manufacturing, service, you name it. Automation is everywhere.

Tellers have been there for decades, and secretaries are gone only in the sense that bosses have to do directly everything they were doing, i.e. it's a loss of service not automation. So are auto-checkouts, and auto checkins at airlines. Maybe web sites replace calling people but this is a very limited productivity enhancement, and not one that qualifies as a wave of automation.

I'll ask again, if automation is everywhere, then why doesn't it show up in productivity number: very weak in the past decade.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'll ask again, if automation is everywhere, then why doesn't it show up in productivity number: very weak in the past decade.

Should I answer again? Automation has been since the 80s. It followed the typical route of diminishing returns like anything else.

Heraclitusstudent says

Tellers have been there for decades, and secretaries are gone only in the sense that bosses have to do directly everything they were doing, i.e. it's a loss of service not automation. So are auto-checkouts, and auto checkins at airlines. Maybe web sites replace calling people but this is a very limited productivity enhancement, and not one that qualifies as a wave of automation.

Secretaries are gone because technology and automation made it possible for managers to do their jobs. Technology and automation made auto checkins possible. ATMS absolutely automated out the vast majority of tellers. Along with web banking. Not to mention what the Internet did to retail jobs.

HappyGilmore says

Should I answer again? Automation has been since the 80s. It followed the typical route of diminishing returns like anything else.

Ok so you mean there WAS automation, but we now no longer have automation going on?

If this is the case automation is now irrelevant right? Then why are you pointing to automation as the force that keeps wages hammered down NOW?

HappyGilmore says

Technology and automation made auto checkins possible.

Auto-checkins use the same technology as non-auto checkins, the only difference is that you do the job the clerks use to do. This is NOT automation.
The same is true for secretaries. The managers no longer have the convenience to ask someone for a service. They have to do it themselves. If not then tell us specifically which part of a secretary's job is now done automatically: writing a letter? screening incoming calls? Calling a person for a service?

Heraclitusstudent says

Ok so you mean there WAS automation, but we now no longer have automation going on?

No, I've explained it twice now. Look up the law of diminishing returns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns
Heraclitusstudent says

The managers no longer have the convenience to ask someone for a service. They have to do it themselves. If not then tell us specifically which part of a secretary's job is now done automatically: writing a letter? screening incoming calls? Calling a person for a service?

The technology allows messages to be communicated so much faster and with so much less effort that managers can do it themselves now.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'll ask again, if automation is everywhere, then why doesn't it show up in productivity number: very weak in the past decade.

I’ll give you a great example of productivity. There are about 370 million people living and eating in America. According to labor rolls, about 64% of them work. So that means we have so much being produced that everything available is produced by about half the population. The rest are lawyers. Oddly enough, legal fees count towards production.

Quigley says

There are about 370 million people living and eating in America. According to labor rolls, about 64% of them work. So that means we have so much being produced that everything available is produced by about half the population. The rest are lawyers.

That's why a company like Apple has about 10x more employees outside the US than in the US and we have a large trade deficit.
This has nothing to do with technology. More like semi-slave labor externally through trade in this case, but also internally through immigration.
Everyone else - who isn't a fat cat - aligns with that standard.

HappyGilmore says

No, I've explained it twice now. Look up the law of diminishing returns:

I've already answered this answer: if all we have now are minor enhancements, then why the hell does it still have a large impact on labor? As large as in the past? You're not saying.

Plus you assume technological innovation has stopped, which makes no sense at all.

Heraclitusstudent says

if all we have now are minor enhancements, then why the hell does it still have a large impact on labor? As large as in the past? You're not saying.

First off--I'm not saying minor enhancements. I'm saying that the productivity gains are not as drastic with some of the changes now. They still could be major changes.

But to answer your question, it's because all the large labor displacement in the past hasn't been eaten up yet. Even so, unemployment is down and wages are up.


Heraclitusstudent says

Plus you assume technological innovation has stopped, which makes no sense at all.

I do nothing of the sort. Of course technological innovation continues. You assume that innovation is a straight line, which is ridiculous.