Walmart worker strikes spread across the country

[Retro Rob]

qualified to do anything that couldn't be done by a machine. What do we do with all of them?

I really like your points, but this one had me thinking.

We'd have a lot of people,.. at home, no job to pay the rent or buy food.... hmmm.. I see why they're checking out Mars.

The rich have a place to run to when they stuff hits the fan and the whole world is after them.

Honestly, if that ever happened in our lifetime, this planet would probably be the scariest place to live...

 

[Darwin333]

I really like your points, but this one had me thinking.

We'd have a lot of people,.. at home, no job to pay the rent or buy food.... hmmm.. I see why they're checking out Mars.

The rich have a place to run to when they stuff hits the fan and the whole world is after them.

Honestly, if that ever happened in our lifetime, this planet would probably be the scariest place to live...

Why would they need to go to mars? They can just all go to some Island somewhere with their private armies.

 

[Darwin333]

They need people to verify ID for alcohol and tobacco sales as well. Most of the time the cashier acts as a troubleshooter for when an item fails to scan or the machine won't take a bill that someone had crumpled up in their codpiece for the last three months. I'm something of a hypocrite in this regard because I prefer the self checkout lanes too, at least when I'm only buying one item and the shortest line consists entirely of old women who have loaded their carts with enough food to last them through Easter and insist on paying with a combination of expired coupons and jars of change that they've had since the Roosevelt administration. But I also recognize that there's an inherent problem in replacing people with machines; if you follow that tack to its eventual conclusion, there's a shitload of people out there who aren't qualified to do anything that couldn't be done by a machine. What do we do with all of them?

I don't necessarily have the answer to that question but we have already come a very long way with automation and we still need unskilled labor today.

And I have never tried to purchase alcohol in the self checkout lane because I know it can hold up the machine while I wait for the cashier who is likely helping someone else who can't figure out how to scan a can of juice.

 

[piasabird]

High school is mostly a waste of time. An apprentice use to start at the age of 14.

 

[alkemyst]

High school is mostly a waste of time. An apprentice use to start at the age of 14.

In reality K-12 is a master work of properly socializing children. However; we have dumbed it down so much it's main purpose is thwarted.

 

[3chordcharlie]

And yes, someday the vast number of people will be unemployed. That's why I said we're going to have to figure out how to handle that.

If you fail to understand this, there's no helping you. You've got tunnel vision.

This is going to require a serious rethink of the entire basis of our economy.

Of course, optionally, those of us who are still on the 'good' side of things could put our fingers in our ears and keep yelling 'Free Market FTW' until an obsolete, useless pitchfork shuts us up.

 

[BoberFett]

This is going to require a serious rethink of the entire basis of our economy.

Of course, optionally, those of us who are still on the 'good' side of things could put our fingers in our ears and keep yelling 'Free Market FTW' until an obsolete, useless pitchfork shuts us up.

Well it just so happens that the free market is the best system. We know centrally planned economies are doomed to failure, that happens repeatedly. What has to change is the value that consumers place on things vs services, because someday 99% of us will be providing services while a handful of people with fancy machines will be cranking out physical goods.

But you're correct in that humanity as a whole is going to have to rethink the basis of our economies.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Well it just so happens that the free market is the best system. We know centrally planned economies are doomed to failure, that happens repeatedly. What has to change is the value that consumers place on things vs services, because someday 99% of us will be providing services while a handful of people with fancy machines will be cranking out physical goods.

But you're correct in that humanity as a whole is going to have to rethink the basis of our economies.

The free market is the best system until it breaks down. This is not a normative statement.

You and I can already afford a nonsensical amount of the labour of others (as long as they live in a poor country). Market-based distribution of resources works very well in an economy where everyone is equal (i.e. 'reasonably equal', within an order of magnitude or so). Our domestic economies work like this internally, ignoring the ultra-wealthy outliers. The global economy does not work like this at all.

The problem is the market is already breaking down. Perhaps it will find a way to adjust, but I have my doubts.

 

[1prophet]

Another Luddite. How surprising.

Keep your head in the sand, son. You look better that way.

Sorry but you missed the point completely, the USA put human beings on the moon 6 times over 30 years ago, back then they predicted people would be living on the moon and landing on mars today,

I am all for star trek type technology but this country is regressing and that is what is going to hold the future back, I am just pointing it out not agreeing with it.

 

[BoberFett]

The problem is the market is already breaking down. Perhaps it will find a way to adjust, but I have my doubts.

That's where you're wrong. The market is working exactly as it should. It's bringing wages down here until we reach parity with the nation's that are actually performing the work. Americans are spoiled and don't seem to realize our stint at the top was temporary, along with the rest of the first world. As Obama said, the world won't sit by and let us use our airtioners while they sweat.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Self-checkout is not completely automated. It just means that instead of one cashier covering one register, you have one cashier covering 16 self-checkout registers, which is a tremendous savings to the company, and means the work of 16 people can now fall on one person and all the customers. We lose 15 jobs, the prices don't go down, management sees a bump in their pay, and people are stuck scanning their own can of juice 20 times because the stupid machine never wants to recognize it.

This is false. There will always be a competitor in a free market willing to cut their prices with the savings made by automation in order to gain an edge over other competitors. Free markets are all about promoting competition amongst players operating in those markets. So no sound business entity would just "pocket" the gains rather than invest it in either lowering their prices and thus undermining their competitors, opening new stores (thus hiring more employees) and tapping into new locations for further gains in profits, offering up new services which require a human touch (e.g. food delivery service) to differentiate themselves from their competitors, or investing that money in other endeavors outside of their industry to diversify their business holdings, etc.


Edit: If your opinion that businesses just pocket their gains made from automation were even remotely true then for example computers and all the other forms of computer tech (cell phones, mp3 players, tablet pc's, etc) would be completely out of the reach of the average consumers today because according to you the producers of those goods and services should be pocketing all the gains made by reducing their cost of operation via automation. However we all know this to be undeniably false as technology marches forward and now you can have a single cell phone in your pocket that processes more cpu cycles than any computer made in 1984 without having to pay a literal fortune to attain said cell phone.

Wait, how exactly is that a positive thing? I mean, sure, if you're sitting in an office telling your boss "I just raised our worker's efficiency by 1500%," then things are pretty good for you. But now I pay the same price and get less service (no one is ringing me up or offering to help me to my car, not that I need that), and there's a noticeable reduction in workforce. None of the savings in worker salaries get passed on to the consumers, they just go to the owners, who weren't exactly hurting for money to begin with. And that's just supermarkets. What happens when we get automation of every crap job? Tens of millions of jobs lost, and we're supposed to be OK with that because the people who held them were "useless" (I know it was bober who used this term and not you, but my response goes to both)?

You seem not to take into account that with increased automation we have a increase in the standard of living and the cost of living is reduced. This trend over a long period of time has historically been shown to produce negative population growth in many 1st world nations. Countries with high amounts of automation, a high standard of living and relatively low cost of living have traditionally had declining birth rates. Furthermore in economics the idea that the amount of labor to be done in a economy is somehow a static variable has long ago been proven to be false and the notion itself is called the "Lump of Labor" or "Lump of Jobs" fallacy.

 

[werepossum]

This is false. There will always be a competitor in a free market willing to cut their prices with the savings made by automation in order to gain an edge over other competitors. Free markets are all about promoting competition amongst players operating in those markets. So no sound business entity would just "pocket" the gains rather than invest it in either lowering their prices and thus undermining their competitors, opening new stores (thus hiring more employees) and tapping into new locations for further gains in profits, offering up new services which require a human touch (e.g. food delivery service) to differentiate themselves from their competitors, or investing that money in other endeavors outside of their industry to diversify their business holdings, etc.


Edit: If your opinion that businesses just pocket their gains made from automation were even remotely true then for example computers and all the other forms of computer tech (cell phones, mp3 players, tablet pc's, etc) would be completely out of the reach of the average consumers today because according to you the producers of those goods and services should be pocketing all the gains made by reducing their cost of operation via automation. However we all know this to be undeniably false as technology marches forward and now you can have a single cell phone in your pocket that processes more cpu cycles than any computer made in 1984 without having to pay a literal fortune to attain said cell phone.



You seem not to take into account that with increased automation we have a increase in the standard of living and the cost of living is reduced. This trend over a long period of time has historical be shown to produce negative population growth in many 1st world nations. Countries with high amounts of automation, a high standard of living and relatively low cost of living have traditionally had declining birth rates. Furthermore in economics the idea that the amount of labor to be done in a economy is somehow a static variable has long ago been proven to be false and the notion itself is called the "Lump of Labor" or "Lump of Jobs" fallacy.

Very good points.

Personally I avoid automated checkouts because I don't think in this economy it's wise to be cutting unskilled labor jobs. When we're at 4% unemployment, I'll change, but given that being a civilized society we'll be subsidizing the displaced workers anyway, I'd much rather wait to displace them until we actually need more workers. Our social safety net is one place where market forces break down.

Two other points. First, increasing automation won't necessarily provide the offsets we'll need to support the baby boomers. Second, immigration (especially illegal immigration) offsets that lower birth rate trend.

 

[Engineer]

That's where you're wrong. The market is working exactly as it should. It's bringing wages down here until we reach parity with the nation's that are actually performing the work. Americans are spoiled and don't seem to realize our stint at the top was temporary, along with the rest of the first world. As Obama said, the world won't sit by and let us use our airtioners while they sweat.

When is the market going to equalize the currency that's being manipulated by China (and others?) to keep their labor superficially low?

 

[Veliko]

That's where you're wrong. The market is working exactly as it should. It's bringing wages down here until we reach parity with the nation's that are actually performing the work. Americans are spoiled and don't seem to realize our stint at the top was temporary, along with the rest of the first world. As Obama said, the world won't sit by and let us use our airtioners while they sweat.

This would make sense if only the rich people weren't getting ever larger pieces of the pie.

 

[BoberFett]

You can argue that the distribution isn't what you'd like it to be, but you can't say the free market isn't working. It's absolutely working. You just don't like the fact that the average American is on the wrong end of the equation right now.

 

[Veliko]

You can argue that the distribution isn't what you'd like it to be, but you can't say the free market isn't working. It's absolutely working. You just don't like the fact that the average American is on the wrong end of the equation right now.

Of course you can say it isn't working. Is it working to benefit those at the top? Yes.

Is it working to benefit society as a whole? Absolutely not.

 

[3chordcharlie]

That's where you're wrong. The market is working exactly as it should. It's bringing wages down here until we reach parity with the nation's that are actually performing the work. Americans are spoiled and don't seem to realize our stint at the top was temporary, along with the rest of the first world. As Obama said, the world won't sit by and let us use our airtioners while they sweat.

What you mean to say is the market is working exactly as it does. Certainly, destroying lives was the predictable result of unregulated free trade, and the flight of capital overseas.

It was also the most painful possible way to achieve global parity, while having no real upside.

It also brings into play a world where wealth is distributed over several orders of magnitude, and where some will die of thirst because the only clean water is 'more valuable' to you or me to use cleaning the gazebo in the back yard. At our vacation house.

Please note that, for economic purposes, this is considered a perfectly 'efficient' result.

 

[BoberFett]

What you mean to say is the market is working exactly as it does. Certainly, destroying lives was the predictable result of unregulated free trade, and the flight of capital overseas.

It was also the most painful possible way to achieve global parity, while having no real upside.

It also brings into play a world where wealth is distributed over several orders of magnitude, and where some will die of thirst because the only clean water is 'more valuable' to you or me to use cleaning the gazebo in the back yard. At our vacation house.

Please note that, for economic purposes, this is considered a perfectly 'efficient' result.

Nothing is being destroyed, merely redistributed. The American lifestyle is unsustainable as a global lifestyle. And don't bother bringing the rich into this. They may control a lot more wealth than the average person, but their total consumption compared to the 99.9% is miniscule.

The free market is bringing the simple fact of of American unsustainability to light, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist as the protectionists, statists, and other detractors of the free market would do. The American lifestyle as you know it today depends entirely on cheap foreign labor; the very same cheap labor that is "takin' our jerbs!" and you claim is destroying America.

Hell, your example of water usage only bolsters the argument that American lifestyles will have to drop considerably, because the horrible world you envision already exists. Americans waste vast amounts of resources on trivialities that could go to better purposes. Ever washed your car? Someone is dying of thirst in Africa. Of course you don't want those damn Africans taking your job because then you wouldn't have a car to wash.

Make up your mind. Do you want everyone to have equal wealth or do you want your luxurious first world lifestyle? You seem to think everybody can have everything if only we legislated it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Nothing is being destroyed, merely redistributed. The American lifestyle is unsustainable as a global lifestyle. And don't bother bringing the rich into this. They may control a lot more wealth than the average person, but their total consumption compared to the 99.9% is miniscule.

The free market is bringing the simple fact of of American unsustainability to light, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist as the protectionists, statists, and other detractors of the free market would do. The American lifestyle as you know it today depends entirely on cheap foreign labor; the very same cheap labor that is "takin' our jerbs!" and you claim is destroying America.

Hell, your example of water usage only bolsters the argument that American lifestyles will have to drop considerably, because the horrible world you envision already exists. Americans waste vast amounts of resources on trivialities that could go to better purposes. Ever washed your car? Someone is dying of thirst in Africa. Of course you don't want those damn Africans taking your job because then you wouldn't have a car to wash.

Make up your mind. Do you want everyone to have equal wealth or do you want your luxurious first world lifestyle? You seem to think everybody can have everything if only we legislated it.

Whaa? I actually never said either of those things. If you want to specifically go down the road of how to minimize pain while achieving global convergence, we can do that, but not while you're stuck with first-year economics model of how the economy works.

For the moment, if we're going to follow your train of thought:

What part of the American lifestyle, circa 1950, was not domestically sustainable?

What about 1970? (note that in neither case am I necessarily claiming the answer to be 'nothing').

Cheap foreign labour was not invented in the 1980s, but efficient overseas transportation has certainly hurried it along.

 

[BoberFett]

Whaa? I actually never said either of those things. If you want to specifically go down the road of how to minimize pain while achieving global convergence, we can do that, but not while you're stuck with first-year economics model of how the economy works.

For the moment, if we're going to follow your train of thought:

What part of the American lifestyle, circa 1950, was not domestically sustainable?

What about 1970? (note that in neither case am I necessarily claiming the answer to be 'nothing').

Cheap foreign labour was not invented in the 1980s, but efficient overseas transportation has certainly hurried it along.

1950s America was providing goods to a world recently destroyed by WW2. Are you going to pretend that we can maintain those kind of exports?

1970 started to see our fall from dominance. We began playing economic games, outsourcing, massive deficit spending, to maintain the facade of American prosperity that we had grown accustomed to.

For all your bluster, you should probably go back to grade school because first year economics is far beyond you.

 

[lotus503]

1950s America was providing goods to a world recently destroyed by WW2. Are you going to pretend that we can maintain those kind of exports?

1970 started to see our fall from dominance. We began playing economic games, outsourcing, massive deficit spending, to maintain the facade of American prosperity that we had grown accustomed to.

For all your bluster, you should probably go back to grade school because first year economics is far beyond you.

Allow me to finish this for you

1980s started borrow heavily from Japan to outspend the soviets. Trickle down supply side fallacy is enacted.

1990s Enact a bunch of shitty trade agreements to ruin our means of production in the name of globalization.

2000s Double down and triple down on stupid, more war for profit to delay inevitable.

Current - No clue WTF to do, wouldn't matter anyway due to a corrupt system that will not allow real solutions to problems.

 

[3chordcharlie]

1950s America was providing goods to a world recently destroyed by WW2. Are you going to pretend that we can maintain those kind of exports?

?? So high standard of living in spite of being a net exporter?

1970 started to see our fall from dominance. We began playing economic games, outsourcing, massive deficit spending, to maintain the facade of American prosperity that we had grown accustomed to.

Outsourcing was not a centralized scheme to 'maintain standards of living'. It was a cynical scheme undertaken by individual business people wanting to have their cake, and eat it too.

Unfortunately, what's financially good for 'everyone' individually is not necessarily 'good for everyone'. Outsourcing was one of these cases.

For all your bluster, you should probably go back to grade school because first year economics is far beyond you.

LOL.

I don't fail to understand the two-lines on a page version of economics. I reject the conclusions, with good cause. Economics is not useless, but first year economics is childish, simplistic, and not applicable to the real world. It is also the level that most internet free-market/libertarian types understand.