Update: Prince Aaron demands Packers fire GM

[lancerman]

Valid point......was Manning and Brady not a rivalry in 2004 but it was a rivalry in 2005?

Manning vs Brady was definitly a rivalry around 2004. Peyton was peaking with MVP's and Brady was winning SB's. People were making the Wilt vs Russell comparisons with them and it was the stat guy vs the winner.

 

[Ring 6]

@Ring 6

I can't reply to your post because you, yet again, screwed up the reply function.


But.....

Your whole reply is based on a ridiculous premise which is that all of the established manufacturing isn't already automated. If 99% of the products are not new products ( that's not an accurate number but nevertheless ) then those products are already automated unless it's a uniquely customizable product.

You're arguing with a 1950's mentality. Products today start out as prototypes and grow, upon acceptance or success, into automated products. No job losses rather higher skilled operators making more product.

Potato chip factories, soda factories etc etc are all fully automated.

Nobody, in this century is using 100,000 employees to make a prototype product or any product manually. Hahaha

Once that product hits saturation you stop adding automation lines.

Oddly you seem to accept that manufacturers need automation to compete and to provide jobs but argue that automation replaces jobs although those jobs would not exist without automation. Strange position even for a bean counter.

I've been in this field at various levels for twenty five years and have not seen "force reductions" at all rather the opposite. Company grows and hires more people.

See when you actually give an opinion there can be a discussion.
You admit in your response they automation has absolutely reduced workforces, so we have cleared one hurdle.
Manufactures need to keep up with automation to compete, but when they do their workforce shrinks, you said it yourself no one employs a lot of people manufacturing by hand. The company advances but the workforce shrinks.
As with anything in an economy supply and demand results in a shift. In America the shift, over a long period, has been moving a lot of manufacturing jobs to service jobs. Now we are seeing automation in services and of course that will result in job losses.
As Uber shifts to self driving vehicles, their drivers will lose those jobs.
As Amazon delivers packages by drone, deliver drivers will lose jobs.
As fast food restaurants move to self order kiosks employees will lose their jobs. It’s already happening in retail stores with self checkout.
As people grow more comfortable with technology, very little banking will be done in person, staffs will reduce (this has already started happening) and branches will close.
Restaurants are starting to have ordering and payment terminals on the tables which will reduce waitstaff.
So many purchases being made on line as self serve reduces brick and mortar retail
sales and therefore staff.

It’s not an argument of whether automation is good or bad, it’s a reality that the consequence work done by machines is a reduction in jobs.

 

[Ring 6]

There's a couple things wrong with applying the fact you just googled. Yes, it appears to be a fact (I didn't verify, cuz it doesn't really matter), but lets add context.

Most households have more than one income, so median income/household doesn't equate to median individual salary. Even with dual average factory level incomes in households, many of those households receive additional moneys, mostly from inheritance, but other means as well. The statistic you provided is fundamentally different than my statement. I say it's nearly impossible to buy a house and raise a family on just a factory worker's salary. Two factory workers salary in a house, maybe, but not one. Fifty years ago, a factory worker could raise a family and own a house without inheritance or second income.

I repeat, I never claimed to be an expert. In fact, most of what I have posted is 101 stuff, which I called out repeatedly.

If you do in fact have a "degree in economics", it likely has nothing to do with economics theory. Maybe some kind of procedural thing like a CPA, but I doubt even that. Ironically, for most of my adult life, my understanding of economics was very similar to the one you seem to have. I believed the stuff I was spoon fed through school and work about the value of "trickle down economics" and "population growth = consumption growth". Like most people, I was still stuck in the belief that globalization is going to continue to expand. It's only in the last 7 years that I've started learning some of the basics about economic theory, and those old myths have been dispelled. It's a massive and changing field that few people could truly become an expert on in a lifetime... something any real economist will tell you.

I have 2 actions items for you.

First, please provide the other fields in which you have degrees. That way, you don't get to pull this card again.

Second, if you already understand game theory (as any "expert" in economics would), please explain to me why game theory is a buzz word? Does that mean zero sum game theory isn't applied directly supply control and artificial scarcity strategies? Are you saying that the experts that routinely use the prisoner's dilemma to predict, describe and model agents' economic behavior, don't know what their doing? Game theory is fundament to economics theory. If you're not familiar with game theory, go spend an hour reading about it. That should be more than enough time for an average person to understand the basics of it. Then you will see how silly it is referring to game theory as a "buzz word" when it comes to economic theory.

Yeah I’m done. You have so little to say, you are now calling my education and experience lies.
There is no point in having a discussion with you because when you know you are wrong you call the other person a liar.
You can’t teach the unreachable.

 

[lancerman]

Also I mean this in the nicest way, but this economics discussion is boring af.

 

[Tony2046]

See when you actually give an opinion there can be a discussion.
You admit in your response they automation has absolutely reduced workforces, so we have cleared one hurdle.
Manufactures need to keep up with automation to compete, but when they do their workforce shrinks, you said it yourself no one employs a lot of people manufacturing by hand. The company advances but the workforce shrinks.
As with anything in an economy supply and demand results in a shift. In America the shift, over a long period, has been moving a lot of manufacturing jobs to service jobs. Now we are seeing automation in services and of course that will result in job losses.
As Uber shifts to self driving vehicles, their drivers will lose those jobs.
As Amazon delivers packages by drone, deliver drivers will lose jobs.
As fast food restaurants move to self order kiosks employees will lose their jobs. It’s already happening in retail stores with self checkout.
As people grow more comfortable with technology, very little banking will be done in person, staffs will reduce (this has already started happening) and branches will close.
Restaurants are starting to have ordering and payment terminals on the tables which will reduce waitstaff.
So many purchases being made on line as self serve reduces brick and mortar retail
sales and therefore staff.

It’s not an argument of whether automation is good or bad, it’s a reality that the consequence work done by machines is a reduction in jobs.

Wow. That's not it at all. You're stuck in the fifties or something.

Anyway enjoy your prehistoric views.

 

[VectorPrime]

Valid point......was Manning and Brady not a rivalry in 2004 but it was a rivalry in 2005?

Id say that’s different because in those first 4 years where Brady never lost there were some classic games. I mean come on, Willie having the best timing for a “leg cramp” of all time might have won the game. Anyway the Mahomes Jackson games have been jokes.

 

[Ring 6]

Wow. That's not it at all. You're stuck in the fifties or something.

Anyway enjoy your prehistoric views.

It’s not a view, it’s a fact.

 

[Tony2046]

It’s not a view, it’s a fact.

No. Sorry. You're way off on this.

Keep financing houses or whatever it is you do.

 

[PP2]

 

[Steve102]

I enjoy his debates. Put him on ignore if he bothers you.

It was intended to be humorous, as he was soiling my thread with his blatant lack of Milana. I really could care less. He wants to debate.... rock on.

 

[BTTA]

I don't disagree with this completely and will add another factor. The US economy was the only one that remained intact after WWII and used it's economic and military might to opposed communism everywhere it arose. Without US interference, I suspect Communism may have thrived in Vietnam.

That said, if you read Marx, communism clearly was about class warfare and violent overthrow. It also requires vast consolidation of power, and given the nature of people currently produced by most cultures today, such consolidation has dire consequeneces.

Communism wasn't going to thrive in Vietnam. That was was a tribal struggle, in an agrarian society, on the tails of the Vietnamese centuries-old fight against the Chinese, and then against western powers. If the US had "won" it would have become a hated occupying power and been under attack the entire time it was there. The Chinese would have been laughing all the way to the bank, just like the Russians are about the US in Afghanistan. "Yeah, we tried that, it is a miserable experience."

The history is now clear about how totally misinformed and underinformed the politicians were of the era, and unable to see the world through anything but the communism vs. capitalism prism.

 

[Clonamery]

Also I mean this in the nicest way, but this economics discussion is boring af.

I mean this in the nicest way, is that your mother? And did she have a lovely day yesterday?

 

[Clonamery]

No. Sorry. You're way off on this.

Keep financing houses or whatever it is you do.

That's interest-ing.

 

[Ring 6]

No. Sorry. You're way off on this.

Keep financing houses or whatever it is you do.

And there we are again. For once you actually explain your thinking a little bit to create a conversation. I pick it apart with insight and details and you come back with “you’re wrong”. If I am wrong you could refute any of the detailed points that I made, explain what makes you think any of those examples are wrong. But you don’t, because you can’t.

 

[Tony2046]

And there we are again. For once you actually explain your thinking a little bit to create a conversation. I pick it apart with insight and details and you come back with “you’re wrong”. If I am wrong you could refute any of the detailed points that I made, explain what makes you think any of those examples are wrong. But you don’t, because you can’t.

 

[Clonamery]

"You can't." Please don't challenge THE authority again. It is obviously very tiring for THE authority to have to point out your continuous wrongness which seems to be automated like his continuous rightness.

 

[VectorPrime]

I’m not even close to a mod but for the love of god shut the hell up people.

 

[Clonamery]

I’m not even close to a mod but for the love of god shut the hell up people.

If you said, for the love of large breasts, well, maybe I'd shut up. God had his chance and totally ****ed it up.

 

[Bill Lee]

i've been on this board for like 20 years and have never placed any user on ignore

i dont want to be in an echo chamber, but to each their own

This seems to be a form of virtue signalling -- I can put up with Andy, you can't, na na na na na na!

I bow to your superior tolerance of .

As for me, when it stinks too much, I flush.

 

[Ring 6]

"You can't." Please don't challenge THE authority again. It is obviously very tiring for THE authority to have to point out your continuous wrongness which seems to be automated like his continuous rightness.

See the difference here is I address the facts point by point, and get a “your wrong” with no counter argument response. So it’s actually me making a case for my opinion, which happens to be right, and the failure to admit they are wrong is on the other side.