File[Automation is increasingly reducing U.S. workforces.swf] - (193 KB)
[_] [L] Anonymous 05/12/12(Sat)23:11 No.1676647
>> [_] Anonymous 05/12/12(Sat)23:30 No.1676656
Who gives a shit? the people who do that kind of work have little to no education. If I owned a
business that a machine could run, (self check in, self serve machine) I would rather work with
that than deal with uneducated morons. I agree, It's not fair to those who didn't have the money
to afford high school or college, but what about trade work? Learning to put together cars and
houses is a much cheaper alternative than traditional school, and the pay is pretty good for that
too. As for the REALLY poor, that is why the us has welfare programs.
This might get to be a problem in the future when machines could put together/fix computers, or
perform flawless surgeries, but for now, anyone with a decent education doesn't need to worry
about getting replaced with a machine.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:15 No.1676680
>>1676656
unfortunately, the US welfare system that you tout as the safety net for the stupid and
impoverished is one reason they are stupid and impoverished.
simply put: a man with no education and no training cannot find a job that pays a wage he can
live on, let alone be proud of. when given the option to simply collect money, his incentive to
grow is effectively killed. remaining on welfare is the path of least resistance.
(continued)
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:17 No.1676683
continued from >>1676680
don't jump immediately to the conclusion that i hate the poor and wish they would die of
starvation. likewise don't assume that welfare is good for the people who are receiving it. we
aren't really looking after their welfare, we're simply handing them money. this isn't a long
term fix to their problem, it just alleviates the immediate symptoms.
if we're going to give a man a fish, shouldn't we also teach him to fish? welfare benefits should
be paid on the condition that the money is being spent on training and education so that they can
get out of the system. this was its initial design anyway.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:20 No.1676686
>>1676683
Why give the person the money if the money is forced to be used towards the education? Just give
the man the education instead.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:22 No.1676689
Don't you understand, people? If we let these "horseless carriages" run rampant, the buggy whip
manufacturers will STARVE!
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:29 No.1676698
>>1676686
that's generally the point, yes. i'm glad you were able to digest it. obviously we would see to
their other living needs as requried, but the benefits paid should be modest.
honestly, we've already started moving more towards that model. it's called TANF. the real
problem is how do we accurately qualify people for benefits so that we can avoid abuse?
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:31 No.1676702
>>1676683
I do agree that the welfare system is severely flawed, but imagine if we just took it away. There
would be a lot of pissed off leeches who would cause lots of trouble by using the media to seem
like victims, not to mention the people legitimately using it as a stable income in order to find
jobs, would now have nothing to live on. We never should have introduced the system in the first
place, because now people believe they are entitled to free money, just because they have no
husband, or an "injury" or because they made the mistake of having too many kids. We should of at
least made it a more solid system with requirements proving you are incapable of work, or at
least you are currently trying for a job/ education
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:33 No.1676705
JESUS CHRIST YOU ASSHOLES ARE RUINING THIS BOARD
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:34 No.1676708
>>1676698
and to say it more firmly, as to avoid confusion: i believe they should first be required to seek
placement in any job. if the horseless carriage has literally put all whip makers out of business
and the whip maker is too stupid to do anything else professionally after having tried honestly
to find work... then it's time for them to receive benefits.
they should then be forced to find a field of interest and start training/education. the state
will pay for this education. after those requirements are met, IF and ONLY IF they demonstrate a
financial need, we will provide modest financial benefits.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:36 No.1676711
>>1676698
This might be my opinion, but science should be used to analyse the needs required of the person
to secure what a person needs, therefore impracticality is ruled out. If the worker simply can't
get a job because there isn't one to do because of automation, that does give millionaires the
right to life more than others if the technical infrastructure can be installed to enable people
to live.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:39 No.1676714
>>1676702
this is my biggest issue with the welfare system. it always has been. of all the things i've said
in this thread, i haven't been able to define solid requirements for eligibility that avoid abuse.
because you're right. to the people whom you've described, the welfare money is a drug, they're
addicted and they want their next fix.
if i had my way, the welfare system would not exist at the federal level at all. state and local
governments are much closer to the people receiving benefits. in an ideal world, charities would
do 100% of the work, and the welfare system wouldn't exist.
...which is how it used to be...
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:48 No.1676722
>>1676711
your wording is a little odd, i'm not sure i understand what you mean. but if i do understand you
correctly:
i agree that it is one's personal responsibility to help others. however, i don't think it's
possible for every person to be altruistic. i have an idea i like to call being "selflessly
selfish", a person cannot help others if he's not strong enough to first help himself. (strong
here means whatever is appropriate in context. it could be intellect, physical strength, or even
wealth.)
if a person isn't making a good enough living to support themselves, they cannot help others
financially. it is also our individual responsibility to help others. therefore, each person
should strive to accumulate wealth in excess, so that they may use the excess to help others if
necessary. it's not required for a government body to provide for the people, the people should
first provide for themselves and then help each other when in need.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)00:53 No.1676725
america's idiocy will ensure that fully automated anything will not take too many jobs away from
laborers.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)02:01 No.1676763
More efficiency is taking away jobs. Aw lawy helps us maser govment, don let them beep-boops take
us jobs!
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)02:06 No.1676765
>>1676763
haha I actually laughed out loud at that
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)04:57 No.1676820
TL;DR
Keep your morals away from 4chan.. It's no place for such thing
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)05:23 No.1676835
Automation doesn't actually effect the number of unskilled jobs available in the workforce as
drastically as you'd think. Mainly due to the fact that it allows us to produce far more goods
and materials than manual labor which allows farms and businesses to expand production which
requires a sizable workforce.
Keep in mind that an unskilled or uneducated worker is a very broad statement that include anyone
without a diploma or an apprenticeship.
The guy who operates the CNC machine in a shop is an unskilled worker despite having the ability
to operate a complex machine for example.
>> [_] Anonymous 05/13/12(Sun)05:27 No.1676837
Also I grew up in a walnut orchard. The reason he cut down on workers isn't because of
automation, it's because harvesting nuts is relatively simple and requires few workers to
maintain the orchard.
