Update: Prince Aaron demands Packers fire GM

[1960Pats]

First Bob Ross and now you're admitting to watch the bachelorette? Lordy

I've never seen an episode of that show and I don't think that I'm missing anything.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Seriously Andy, get the **** out of this thread with this ****. If you want to talk Rodgers, Milana, etc., then awesome, join the party. There are other threads for hardcore debating.

 

[1960Pats]

I'd suggest taking the union/management debate to another thread.

PatsFans - The Shirtless Bob Ross Thread For Ass-Hats Who'd Rather Debate With Andy Than Admire Milana Vayntrub's Boobs

Are they real?

 

[oldrover]

Are they real?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Are they real?

I was literally Googling this gif.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Teri Hatcher is certainly a fox but I never thought her rack was all that special.

AT&T girl blows her out of the water.

 

[Pats1971]

He's made it this far.


Rodgers isn't really a runner. He's a scrambler. And his big injuries have been upper body, other than his foot injury all the way back in 2006.

He takes a lot of hits because he holds the ball too long. He will never make it to 45 mainly because he will not want to.

 

[Galeb]

Everyone is not self employed.
Companies provide the means of production, employees provide the labor.
A company can replace a worker much more easily than a worker can find an equivalent job, but that aside a company can survive without one worker much longer and more readily than a worker can survive without a job.
Note that I said THAT worker not ANY worker.

All of which are owned by the company.


Which is necessary for anything else to occur.


that depends upon how you define “more important”. And the workers are part of the company contributing what they contribute in return for a pay check.


It appears you are looking at this from an emotional viewpoint. I am not I am talking about economics.

Never said everyone was self employed. Simply proving your initial statement was false.

Workers provide the means of production, companies provide the capital. The capital is granted to the company by people. A small amount of that capital was granted by people who were actually workers, but most of it by people who inherited the money that was, at one point was skimmed off the top of worker production. There are few rare examples that start of different than this, I.E. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, but they pretty much succumb to the "short term profit above all" model eventually anyway. This is 101 stuff.

Although it is true that big companies, in many areas, have shipped enough jobs overseas and imported enough skilled, cheaper labor that the supply of workers exceeds the demand, there are still a number of industries where a worker can find a new job more easily than they are replaced. NFL is certainly one of these (for skilled players). The rapid demise of Globalization and mass retirement of the baby boomers (starts in 2022) is going to dramatically increase the demand for skilled workers in the US.

The reason why the companies own all intellectual property etc... is because they've lobbied for years to bend the laws in their favor. Even though the laws state that the company owns said property, none of it would be possible without the workers. Corporations have also corrupted labor unions, poisoned our culture and divided our population, but that's an entirely different conversation.

You seem to be misinterpreting my disdain of the hypocrisy displayed by those who think they hit a triple as an emotional approach to economics. Ironically, those who understand the basics of economics realize that emotion is a fundamental driver of economics. You claim to be looking at this from a purely economics standpoint, but you have yet to even mention worker consumption. When one doesn't realize that consumption is driven almost completely by workers, the true value of workers can't be understood.

Check out some of the recent talks by Peter Zeihan. It can provide a basic understanding of worker value, the importance of their consumption, as well as the importance of age/generational demographics and geography. The global economy is changing dramatically. This stuff will blow away the ******** they spoon feed you when going for an MBA.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I cannot tolerate this constant thread hijacking. Stop!

Now..back to the topic.

 

[Galeb]

There is no value to a company to automate if it doesn’t reduce labor costs. They would be spending more money to produce their product (same labor cost plus additional automation cost).
Unless your are producing more, which just puts people out of work at your competitor.

Not sure why you'd assume this negates the "short term profit above all else" philosophy that large businesses require.

Automation, AI and robotics are rapidly replacing tons of jobs right now. It's not just low skilled jobs anymore, it's pretty much every field. Look at IT, finance and lawyers in the last decade. The evidence is all around you, just walk into any Walmart, Pharmacy or Supermarket.

AI is getting better, robotics is getting cheaper, and labor is going to get more expensive as the rate of globalization and global trade decline continues to accelerate. The moment automation becomes cheaper than labor in a sector, it is implemented, and it's happening in virtually every field.

 

[Tony2046]

But in most industries that would put a lot of people, the competition, out of work.

For example, if the demand for widgets is 1,000,000 per year and current automation (plus pool of workers,etc) says a company can produce 1000 of then with 20 workers, then there is room in the economy for 1000 widget producing companies and 20000 workers.
If you automate so that the same number of people can produce 10 times as more, now a company of 20 is producing 10,000. You haven’t created more demand so ultimately 900 of those 1000 companies and 18000 of those workers will end up eliminated.

Put another way if McDonald’s automates so that the same number of people can produce 10 times as many burgers, since they can’t sell 10 times as many burgers 90% of the staff will be eliminated. (Assuming they were already at the maximum of sales, a little less if somehow they attract more business because of automation, but since food consumed is a finite value, somewhere down the line the ability to produce more per person has to result in less people producing)

While you are correct at a micro level the larger view would include widgets made in China etc... If those companies do not Automate they can't compete with the cheap labor and government subsidies overseas companies have access to. Overall automation saves and creates jobs.

 

[Tony2046]

Not yet. If we keep advancing at the current pace, as we approach an AI singularity, AI and robots will far exceed humans in every field and job. AIs will begin to write better AIs than people can, which in turn will write better AIs still.

Odds are, we'll start going down hill before that, but if we can maintain a similar rate of progress,, the singularity is probably within 40 years, perhaps much sooner.

As far as automation goes I've been hearing the "replacement" argument for decades. Actually they were a concern when Henry Ford automated the automotive assembly process. It hasn't happened yet rather it has created a smarter and more productive workforce.

As far as AI goes I've read numerous theories ranging from a Terminator type ending to a Utopian type ending. So I really don't know. Haha.

But just from my experiences automation is absolutely necessary and absolutely does not eliminate jobs from a global perspective.

 

[Ring 6]

Never said everyone was self employed. Simply proving your initial statement was false.

That doesn’t come close to refuting what I said.

Workers provide the means of production, companies provide the capital. The capital is granted to the company by people.

The means of production are the factories, raw materials and resources.
GRANTED?? People GRANT capital to bush hex’s owners? It what world? Certainly not this one.

A small amount of that capital was granted by people who were actually workers, but most of it by people who inherited the money that was, at one point was skimmed off the top of worker production.

what are you taking about? If I use my assets to open a business no one granted me that capital.
Skimmed off the workers? Thanks Comrad, I understand you now.

There are few rare examples that start of different than this, I.E. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, but they pretty much succumb to the "short term profit above all" model eventually anyway. This is 101 stuff.

Well you need to go back to 101 then.

Although it is true that big companies, in many areas, have shipped enough jobs overseas and imported enough skilled, cheaper labor that the supply of workers exceeds the demand, there are still a number of industries where a worker can find a new job more easily than they are replaced. NFL is certainly one of these (for skilled players). The rapid demise of Globalization and mass retirement of the baby boomers (starts in 2022) is going to dramatically increase the demand for skilled workers in the US.

The reason why the companies own all intellectual property etc... is because they've lobbied for years to bend the laws in their favor.

the owner it because they PAID PEOPLE TO DEVELOP IT

Even though the laws state that the company owns said property, none of it would be possible without the workers. Corporations have also corrupted labor unions, poisoned our culture and divided our population, but that's an entirely different conversation.

And none of it would have been possible if the company didn’t foot all of the expense, provide all of the resources, and take all of the risk.

You seem to be misinterpreting my disdain of the hypocrisy displayed by those who think they hit a triple as an emotional approach to economics. Ironically, those who understand the basics of economics realize that emotion is a fundamental driver of economics. You claim to be looking at this from a purely economics standpoint, but you have yet to even mention worker consumption. When one doesn't realize that consumption is driven almost completely by workers, the true value of workers can't be understood.

You want to deflect from economic realities by conflating employer/employee dynamics with consumers?

Check out some of the recent talks by Peter Zeihan. It can provide a basic understanding of worker value, the importance of their consumption, as well as the importance of age/generational demographics and geography. The global economy is changing dramatically. This stuff will blow away the ******** they spoon feed you when going for an MBA.

Your communist dream has failed everywhere it has been tried.

 

[Tony2046]

I've never seen an episode of that show and I don't think that I'm missing anything.

He's awesome. I'm just kidding around with The Dude.

Years ago I dated a struggling artist. I used to critique her paintings in a way to help her or so I thought. She was really good. Anyway during one of my critiques she says, "if you know so much why don't you paint something". So I watched a Bob Ross episode and painted a picture of a happy little mountain with some friendly little trees. It came out pretty good which pissed her off. Haha. Probably why that relationship didn't last.

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure why you'd assume this negates the "short term profit above all else" philosophy that large businesses require.

totally incorrect and unaware assumption. There is vast r and d expenditures in America, significant factory construction, a wealth of experimentation in product. All investment in the long term.

Automation, AI and robotics are rapidly replacing tons of jobs right now. It's not just low skilled jobs anymore, it's pretty much every field. Look at IT, finance and lawyers in the last decade. The evidence is all around you, just walk into any Walmart, Pharmacy or Supermarket.

AI is getting better, robotics is getting cheaper, and labor is going to get more expensive as the rate of globalization and global trade decline continues to accelerate. The moment automation becomes cheaper than labor in a sector, it is implemented, and it's happening in virtually every field.

you are agreeing with what I said. Automation eliminates jobs.

 

[Ring 6]

While you are correct at a micro level the larger view would include widgets made in China etc... If those companies do not Automate they can't compete with the cheap labor and government subsidies overseas companies have access to. Overall automation saves and creates jobs.

There is still a saturation point of demand. I guess you can hope some of the people who lose jobs are Chinese but the point is that being able to produce more per employee ends up reducing employees either at that company, their competitors here, or abroad. Ultimately since history shows automation is never limited to one company and competitors will catch up, or spring up, it ends up affecting all of them.

 

[Ring 6]

As far as automation goes I've been hearing the "replacement" argument for decades. Actually they were a concern when Henry Ford automated the automotive assembly process. It hasn't happened yet rather it has created a smarter and more productive workforce.

As far as AI goes I've read numerous theories ranging from a Terminator type ending to a Utopian type ending. So I really don't know. Haha.

But just from my experiences automation is absolutely necessary and absolutely does not eliminate jobs from a global perspective.

The assembly line has cost tons and tons of jobs. How many more workers would be needed to make a car without it?
Automation is necessary because of competition. Company A invests in technology to make a product cheaper. Company B has to keep up or die. Company C sees company B dying and starts up with automation.
But in the end if you require less labor to produce your product unless you have unlimited demand people lose their jobs, unless you want to manufacture something you can’t sell.

 

[Galeb]

As far as automation goes I've been hearing the "replacement" argument for decades. Actually they were a concern when Henry Ford automated the automotive assembly process. It hasn't happened yet rather it has created a smarter and more productive workforce.

As far as AI goes I've read numerous theories ranging from a Terminator type ending to a Utopian type ending. So I really don't know. Haha.

But just from my experiences automation is absolutely necessary and absolutely does not eliminate jobs from a global perspective.

There was a lot of fear of automation replacing too many workers for a long time. The difference now is that it's in almost every field, not just a few, non-skilled fields. We're also reaching the point where AI is starting to create other AIs. I don't claim to know what happens when we reach an AI singularity, but the elimination of most jobs will happen if we get close to it. I encourage you to check out Ben Goertzel's stuff, he's got some very interesting ideas on the subject.

I'm not bashing automation, just describing the inevitable consequences if we keep advancing at the current trajectory. It could ultimately be a great thing, but we'd not only have to dramatically change how we do business and support people, but we'll have to start making better people. If not, civilization will become a giant welfare state of unmotivated, depressed and divided people... assuming there isn't a huge population reduction.

 

[Tony2046]

There is still a saturation point of demand. I guess you can hope some of the people who lose jobs are Chinese but the point is that being able to produce more per employee ends up reducing employees either at that company, their competitors here, or abroad. Ultimately since history shows automation is never limited to one company and competitors will catch up, or spring up, it ends up affecting all of them.

Ok this argument neglects new product cycles, product development, diversified production and Innovativeness altogether.

Saturation assumes no changes or improvements or changes to the product which always happens.

For example, the Gelardi brothers brought automation to southern Maine. They trained technicians and operators to run the automation. Soon after other companies sprung up, developed new products and new automation to manufacture those products and hired those experienced technicians to maintain those lines.

Ideas inspired new ideas. Trained technicians benefited. Soon more technicians were trained. On and on and on.

New products are always coming out. Which means new production methods, new automation and new cycles.

Prototype - you manually make a few hundred.

If product is successful - a few thousand are made.

If demand increases - develop automation. Hire experienced techs, operators and train new techs and operators.

Product fades - next product.


Every company I've been a part of over the last twenty five years has diversified it's production. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket. Use the talent of your workforce. Be flexible.

Automation saves jobs.

 

[Galeb]

That doesn’t come close to refuting what I said.

The means of production are the factories, raw materials and resources.
GRANTED?? People GRANT capital to bush hex’s owners? It what world? Certainly not this one.


what are you taking about? If I use my assets to open a business no one granted me that capital.
Skimmed off the workers? Thanks Comrad, I understand you now.


Well you need to go back to 101 then.

the owner it because they PAID PEOPLE TO DEVELOP IT


And none of it would have been possible if the company didn’t foot all of the expense, provide all of the resources, and take all of the risk.

You want to deflect from economic realities by conflating employer/employee dynamics with consumers?

Your communist dream has failed everywhere it has been tried.

LMAO. You didn't hit a triple, Andy.

Nice try with the whole commie routine. Surprise it took you this long. That said, Communism is probably more destructive than Capitalism in the short term. In the long term, both lead to the end of civilization. Any system that relies on the accelerating consumption of finite resources is necessarily self-terminating.

All current government and economic systems were designed hundreds of years ago, and are woefully unequipped for modern civilization. There are aspects of the systems that can be useful in some sectors, but new systems need to be developed if we don't want to destroy civilization and a good chunk of the biosphere with it.

Short term profit above all else doesn't mean there are no considerations for long term profit, or survival or the company. Those initiatives just come at a much lower priority. The recent factory construction in the USA that you cited is very recent and isn't a result of long term profits. It's far more about corporate survival than long term profit. Overseas trade (outside North America), is going to significantly reduce as the US decreases it's overseas military (and naval) presence. If these corporations don't have a means to obtain tech components, rare earth elements and all the other production that the US has neglected for decades, they will die. It might be worth learning about the changing state of globalization so you can speak intelligently about this topic.

Thanks for replaying the tired old commie bit. I needed a laugh.