I may be off the wall, but since automation has claimed many

[shraby]

jobs that have stayed in the country, throwing many out of work, why couldn't a rule be put in place that says something like this:
All worker(s) displaced by a machine should retain a large percentage of the pay that the machine saves a company. Instead of the worker(s) losing out totally. The worker(s) wouldn't be left high and dry, could still support his/her family and maybe get retraining for another job. When he locates a job that replaces what he had in money and benefits, the pay from the former company can be stopped.

[leftstreet]

1. OMG OMG You would take money from the mouths of starving Rich People?!

:cry:

K&R

[shraby]

4. I should have added that if the displaced worker(s) prefer

to not work, the pay should be continued until they are old enough to retire. If the company hadn't instituted cost saving machines to replace worker(s), many of those employed would have probably stayed with that company until retirement anyway.

[Odin2005]

2. The ultimate solution is to reduce working hours withour reducing daily pay.

[Statistical]

3. Why should a worker receive a dividend from the CapEx for productivity gains?

[shraby]

5. Because they are victims of a company's greed.

[Statistical]

6. LOL. While workers are often the victims of corporate greed.

The worst possible thing we could do is discourage productivity gains. It is only through productivity gains that American workers can justify their higher standard of living.

Your "plan" would be counter productive. It would encourage employers to simply not invest in productivity gains and just force wages lower to maximize ROI. Rather than upgrade plant to be 10% more efficient they could just pay everyone 10% less (or 20% less and double the profits).

Productivity gains are what creates wealth. They are a labor multiplier. A human only has so many working hours in a week thus only so much can be done. Productivity gains allows more to be done with same amount of time. It is something to be encouraged not discouraged.

Have you ever considered why the US has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Why does an American worker make more than say a Mexican worker? American productivity is the highest in the world. If American productivity declines (even on a relative basis) American standard of living will also.

[JDPriestly]

10. If the pay to the middle class decreases, demand for services

and products will also decrease -- and productivity will decline as demand declines. Companies do not have an incentive to increase productivity when labor is very cheap and demand low.

The combination of high wages (money for discretionary purchase in the hands of large numbers of people) and high demand has encouraged the investment and innovations that have increased productivity over the years.

[Statistical]

14. The point is for the US to be competitive (and avoid losing even more jobs)

we should be encouraging US companies to invest in technology and automation to boost productivity.

A more abstract view. Are Americans "special"? Are we a superior master race? Do we deserve a comfortable life more than people in other countries?

If you answer no to those questions then you need to ask yourself "How can Americans justify their higher median income?". An American factory worker gets paid more than a Mexican factory worker. An American database programmer gets paid more than an Indian database programmer. Why?

The answer is productivity. American productivity results in higher wages. While wages in the US have stagnated they would need to fall 70% to reach global median. The justification for higher wages is higher output. Now there are a lot of factors for higher output; work ethic, education, infrastructure, stable governments but a large source is automation & technology.

If companies employing Americans are discouraged to invest in automation & technology then the gap between American output and foreign output will also decline. As a result the wage gap between American workers and average global worker will decline.

[JDPriestly]

16. Statistical, you are not looking at the whole picture.

Investment and increased productivity result from maintaining a certain balance between the demand and supply in a market.

They are not so much causes as effects.

When cheap goods and services are imported and flood out domestic demand, then domestic investment and productivity fall.

Our wages appear extremely high because of the role of our currency. Oil, the commodity that fuels and feeds our society is traded in money that our bankers print at will. That is why we are richer than the rest of the world.


I have lived in European countries. Our quality of life in terms of culture and historical treasure for example, is by no means as good as it is in some other countries, I assure you. Our families are a lot weaker and less supportive than in some other countries. So, we are not exceptional in all areas. We just print the oil dollars. ANd oil makes all that technology and productivity and even our surplus of food flow.

[napi21]

7. I don't see technology as corp. greed. If you think about it. many jobs have just gone

away because of advances in technology. The blacksmith, the people who tared dirt roads to keep the dust down, even mail carriers jobs are disappearing because of email and paying bills online. That's not corp. greed

Corp. greed is sending millions of jobs to China, Vietnam, Sri Lanka etc. to utilize cheap labor.

[marginlized]

8. Don't go off like Ned Ludd

Automation's a long game. 98+% of any population used to farm, but now only about 2% of Americans are farm workers. What we need to fix is Education to encourage life long learning at no cost. So people can nimbly move around industries as jobs come and go. But, oh yeah, there's the energy problem. Automation collapses without it.

[JDPriestly]

9. Most of the lost jobs have been outsourced, not automated.

[Uben]

11. and your source is?

Cuz I haven't seen this one.

[JDPriestly]

15. First -- the labels on the stuff I buy. That's my first source.

The second is my many friends whose jobs have been outsourced.

The third is the information about all the construction and building going on in China.

[quaker bill]

12. Automation

is only cheaper than labor over time. A business has to pay off the loans involved in purchasing the equipment before cost savings arise. If you add an additional expense to the package, the businesses will not automate and will simply get beat on price in the market place by foriegn companies that use cheap labor or automate without this restriction.

I once served as shop foreman for a shop that made eyeglasses, the old fashioned way. It took 8 people in a production line to assemble well made prescription glasses, using no computers and 1950s technology. Most of the guys I supervised had been working since the 1950s and 1960s and were quite good at getting the job done. The management did not choose to automate. Across town another company started up using digital technology and automation. They were capable of making more pairs a day of similar quality, using 2 workers. In about 2 months all of our major customers were gone.

Now the new business was less capable of doing some of the more exotic custom work we did, but there was never enough of that to sustain the business, so we were informed one wednesday that friday would be our last day.

The point being that a company that chose loyalty to its workers over automation, was quickly dispatched by competition that chose automation. I have lived this experience.

[Statistical]

13. Good personal example.

[leeroysphitz]

17. You don't get rich by allowing workers to share in the wealth that they help to create. n/t