Update: Prince Aaron demands Packers fire GM

[Ring 6]

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.

That’s not the reality of the vast majority of companies.
But this is getting too involved for a football board, so we will have to just agree to disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

That is what you profess. It’s pretty clear.

 

[Galeb]

That is what you profess. It’s pretty clear.

Doubling down on the commie thing, that's hilarious. It wasn't a triple, Andy.

 

[Ring 6]

Doubling down on the commie thing, that's hilarious. It wasn't a triple, Andy.

Business owners were granted their capital.
I’m sorry you don’t want to accept your beliefs are consistent with communism but they are.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

I came for another peek at those "howitzers" and all i found was an argument about economics

 

[Tony2046]

That’s not the reality of the vast majority of companies.
But this is getting too involved for a football board, so we will have to just agree to disagree.

I'll agree that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[NormZauchin]

Sure, I think most would, but they do represent labor in that, what happens to them has repercussions for workers with modest wages.

It's not evident from the wages earned by the two groups. For the past three decades, the rate of pay increases for professional athletes in football, baseball, and basketball has widely exceeded the rate of inflation, while the pay of the average American has stagnated.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

I’m picking nits here since I think we agree on this but are wording it differently. That said, I don’t know if there is any hardcore evidence that automation saves jobs. There is a case that automation creates a demand for new jobs that firms didn’t previously know they needed, though.

 

[PP2]

View attachment 32746

He literally painted a "happy accident."

 

[RobertWeathers]

View attachment 32745

I hear Bob Ross from beyond the grave....

"OK friends, I see a couple of happy little mountains right in front of us. Let's use a little Titanium White and gently brush them in. We'll then add a motorboat casually floating along between the mountains.".

 

[Galeb]

Business owners were granted their capital.
I’m sorry you don’t want to accept your beliefs are consistent with communism but they are.

To a thoughtful, nuanced view, the criticism of corporations and the damage they do doesn't necessarily equate to communism. Communism demands a violent revolution by the masses, an idea that simply leads to replacing one set of wealthy ruling class with another. It also requires an extreme consolidation of power, and massive reduction in peoples' rights. These are just a couple of the fundamental aspects of Communism that I find destructive.

Capitalism, although truly damaging now, did serve a vital role in history, something Communism likely couldn't have accomplished. It drove human technology and development to a point where we could virtually eliminate scarcity and employ, clothe, house and feed everyone relatively easily. That was over 100 years ago, but unfortunately, we chose profit instead.

What I do believe, is that systems of government and economics that were designed before the steam engine was invented are ill-equipped to deal with modern civilization. Our level of technology grants us the ability to employ, house, feed and cloth virtually everyone on Earth while creating quality goods that last decades, and close loop recycling and manufacturing processes that produces very little waste. Instead, we leave huge swaths of the planet in squalor while creating cheap products designed to fail within just a few years. We're transforming this planet that gives us life into a toxic junkyard, all for the profit of a tiny class of elites.

Heck, just look at the nature of people produced today. With all our knowledge and technology, instead of producing thoughtful, empathic independent thinkers, we chose to produce selfish, spiteful ultra-consumers that fall into one of two spoon-fed ideologies that divide us and cause tremendous damage. When the average person is good and thoughtful, the wealth distribution isn't nearly so out-of-whack.

So feel free to call me a commie to justify your perspective. Although it's not even close to the truth, you can at least tell you self that you won an argument and that you actually hit a triple.

 

[PP2]

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.

Capitalism isn't sustainable anyway (even Friedman has acknowledged as such), because growth isn't infinite since we live on only one planet, and while AI may or may not be a gamechanger in shaping how we exist as a society, the day will still come when people in general will not be working their asses off for the majority of their lives. As bizarre a concept as it is to entertain at this point, I think people and countries at some point (say a hundred years from now) will have transitioned to a circular economy with zero growth and zero competition. There would be little need for money or possessions.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Alright back on track. Marvel nerds are people too.

Scarlet Witch:

 

[PP2]

To a thoughtful, nuanced view, the criticism of corporations and the damage they do doesn't necessarily equate to communism. Communism demands a violent revolution by the masses, an idea that simply leads to replacing one set of wealthy ruling class with another. It also requires an extreme consolidation of power, and massive reduction in peoples' rights. These are just a couple of the fundamental aspects of Communism that I find destructive.

And also I have to nitpick with you on this (and not to hijack your discussion with the resident idiot)- the idea of communism as it existed on paper, as a branch of socialism, is actually a classless system in which everyone has common ownership and equal say in how things run. I think over the long run, this system of governance will win out across the globe. It already exist in many instance on micro levels. Open source software is a perfect example of what communism in fact, is.

Communism just got hijacked by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro who were nothing more than dictators and came to have a bad reputation.

I would argue that the revolutions that eventually resulted in a communist government were in fact more about toppling monarchies than about instituting communism. Violent revolutions nearly always result in dictatorships.

 

[Galeb]

And also I have to nitpick with you on this (and not to hijack your discussion with the resident idiot)- the idea of communism as it existed on paper, as a branch of socialism, is actually a classless system in which everyone has common ownership and equal say in how things run. I think over the long run, this system of governance will win out across the globe. It already exist in many instance on micro levels. Open source software is a perfect example of what communism in fact, is.

Communism just got hijacked by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro who were nothing more than dictators and came to have a bad reputation.

I would argue that the revolutions that eventually resulted in a communist government were in fact more about toppling monarchies than about instituting communism. Violent revolutions nearly always result in dictatorships.

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.

 

[Wordsmyth]

Elizabeth Olsen? I need to take a cold shower now...

 

[Galeb]

I’m picking nits here since I think we agree on this but are wording it differently. That said, I don’t know if there is any hardcore evidence that automation saves jobs. There is a case that automation creates a demand for new jobs that firms didn’t previously know they needed, though.

In the past, automation did contribute to growth, but the number of jobs created was always much smaller than those eliminated. Most of the jobs that were created were as a result of a steady rise in global consumption for decades. As just about every nation's population is aging (less kids per capita) and the last large generation is beginning mass retirement, global consumption has not only stopped growing, it will start retracting. Fortunately for us, the US and Mexico baby boomers actually had a lot of kids relative to most other countries, so we should be much better off over the next couple decades than most of the world.

For decades, the rate of automation was slowed dramatically by shipping manufacturing overseas to stable countries with the lowest wages. This trend is stopping for a couple of reasons; in many manufacturing sectors, automation is about to become cheaper than the cheapest labor and, just as importantly, globalization is dieing and manufacturing is becoming more regional. In the next couple of decades, manufacturing in the US and Mexico will skyrocket.

Automation used to happen slowly, to a couple of sectors at a time. With global consumption shrinking, manufacturing shifting to regional, rather than global, and with automation affecting almost all fields at once instead of a few at a time, the rate of automation is dramatically increasing. Those that clung to the idea that automation creates more jobs than it replaces are in for a rude awakening very soon. The US and Mexico will be somewhat insulated against this over the next decade or two, but gen Z and the following generation will face bigger challenges that we ever did.

 

[Galeb]

Business owners were granted their capital.
I’m sorry you don’t want to accept your beliefs are consistent with communism but they are.

Notice that I made a distinction at the beginning and excluded small business, even saying we were better off when small business was the backbone of our economy. I should have used the word invested instead of granted, but either way, the capital invested into LARGE businesses was ultimately created by the labor of workers. Workers extract the raw materials, workers refine the raw materials, workers build the components and assemble the devices. Large companies are literally just a means to make a small number of wealthy people even more wealthy. This is obvious to all but the blind.