***** OT -- minimum metal content but important (and a hot
button issue for me) *****
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
If you want a third world society and culture, create a
third world economy. If you want a third word economy, pay
third world wages... Unka' George
As we can see in 2010 only two nations, Mexico and Chile,
were worse in the gap between rich and poor than the United
States. Again, most of America is clearly in 3rd world
status at this point and the illusion of America being the
wealthiest nation on Earth is only for a select few.
Income inequality increased dramatically between 1979 and
2007, when a global financial crisis rocked not just the
U.S. but the entire world. But maybe things have turned
around since then? No. Just take a look at what happened in
Real [that means inflation-adjusted] median
household income declined between 2010 and 2011, a second
consecutive annual decline.
The poverty rate in 2011 was not statistically
different from 2010.
Both the percentage and number of people without
health insurance decreased between 2010 and 2011.
The return to high inequalityor what Krugman and journalist
Timothy Noah have referred as the "Great Divergence"began
in the 1970s.
The income growth of the average American family closely
matched that of economic productivity until some time in the
1970s. While it began to stagnate, productivity has
continued to climb.
Studies have found income grew more unequal almost
continuously except during the economic recessions in
1990-91, 2001 (Dot-com bubble), and 2007 sub-prime bust.
Income inequality is a consequence of technological change.
With the continued development of computer technology, people of low
and average intelligence are permanently displaced by computers that
can do their job better.
"Educating" those people is not really the answer, because you cannot
teach them to do anything that computers cannot do better. So, people
of high intelligence can enjoy greater benefits of automation, while
the rest of the population is unneeded and displaced.
As I do not expect people in general to suddenly become smarter, this
trend is not reversible. Also, as computer and algorithmss become
better, faster and smarter, "the IQ bar" for being displaced by
computers, is constantly raised.
The implications of this are disturbing.
Blaming "Obama" is the easy explanation for dumb people, who do not
understand why they became redundant.
IQ has nothing to do with all the menial jobs that have been exported
to low wage contries/regions. Where does apple manufacture thier
products? Most people are coned into believing the government
controls the ecconomy when in fact it is controlled by multinational
corporations, wall street bankers and thier lobbyists. They are the
ones who decide who gets the wealth. Technological change is not
the cause of exporting jobs.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:58:44 -0500, Ignoramus15215
The computer still cannot drive nails and dig ditches. Your "lower
intelligence" people can make very good wages as skilled laborers and
tradesmen that will not be replaced by computers in their lifetimes,
or their children's lifetimes.
And there are more unemployed IT and computer science geeks out there
than there are unemployed electricians, plumbers, millrights,
On 8/29/2013 18:00, email@example.com wrote:
<SNIP> >> i
True. However, the youth of today has been conditioned into believing
they must strive for the very high paying, non physical labor type of
jobs. Unfortunately, as is the same for all the athletes who base their
future on becoming a pro, there aren't enough openings are available.
You must be VERY good at what you do, have a few connections, and have a
backup plan in case you don't succeed in achieving the elite status you
desire. Most do not.
True. Those trades cannot be outsourced.
firstname.lastname@example.org (remove brain when replying)
Myth. The jobs that have consistently low unemployment numbers are the
"very high paying, non physical labor type of jobs."
Here are the actual unemployment figures for the jobs mentioned, from
a Wall Street Journal analysis of Bureau of Labor Stastics figures
Automotive mechanics 7.9%
The national average at that time was 7.8%. Here are the geek jobs
Computer scientists and systems analysts 3.6%
Computer and IT managers 3.2%
And so it goes. Computer hardware engineers, 1.9%. Biomedical
engineers, 0.4%. Brick and stone masons, 18.8%.
The kids have been "conditioned" right.
This data goes back to 2011. During the current recession, the
building trades got hit pretty hard. Engineering is less cyclical.
One big dip was after the Soviet Union died: The engineering trade
rags were full of doom-and-gloom, and letters from people emigrating to
Australia (which at the time had an open immigration policy for
high-skill people). The nationwide engineering unemployment rate had
quadrupled! -- it went from about 1% to about 4%.
To fill out the picture, it's useful to also know the number of people
in the various job categories. For instance, there has to be a factor
of ten more electricians than electrical engineers.
That's data reported in Jan. 2013, from employment figures for 2012.
During any recession, building trades are almost ALWAYS hit hard. They
are highly unstable jobs, depending a great deal on home sales and
business building investment rates -- which swing like a yo-yo.
Engineering and related jobs are much more stable than building
trades, but anything related to manufacturing is also vulnerable to
rates of consumer sales.
That's easy to determine, Joe. The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces
vast amounts of data, which I've used in my research for close to 40
I think the best way is through the "subject area" page:
They improved their site not long ago. You still have to drill down to
find something specific, but it's not difficult.
Or you can use Google to shortcut things. For example, "BLS minimum
wage," without the quotes, brings up the pages I used to answer the
question in this thread.
It is hard to make a computer fix toilets, however, it is possible to
make reliable toilets due to progress, that do not need fixing.
There is only so many toilet fixers that are needed.
As for digging ditches, I cannot see why a computer could not dig
ditches, or drive a OTR semi truck.
It is also natural that computers would make bad "IT geeks"
unemployed. I used to work for a financial firm in Chicago. I set up a
system of Linux servers, 120+, that did not need even one system
administrator. They did not need administrators, because they was
managed properly by scripts, as opposed to "IT geeks" walking from
computer to computer. We did not fire existing system admins, but did
not need to hire anybody either.
I managed them, which took at most 2 hours of my time per week. It was
great. Not the endless labor intensive drudgery it used to be.
My latest PLC machine: I have hired a person in the morning and trained
him to put two parts and 6 bundles of wire in place and put his hands
into the two hand cuffs then take the finished part out and put it in a
barrel. Repeat. That new hire makes exactly the same number of parts
as a 15 year veteran. And five times as many as an artisan makes by
hand on a simple machine. The product is of higher quality, can be run
at higher speeds and use high-tensile wire.
We and working on automating the insertion of the parts. I don't need
to send jobs overseas or train an operator for months. But, I have to
compete with Chinese products using junk materials.
I never buy any non-American wire brushes.
Did you talk to any automation companies about setting up a robot to
do this work? I am thinking that you can spend $20k and get rid of
that employee or repurpose him or her.
On 8/29/2013 11:02 PM, email@example.com wrote:
The trouble with more automation that I see is that at some point there
has to a be human involved. Can trucks be unloaded and materials be
unpacked and prepared by robots? Sure, but the laws of diminishing
returns don't favor that high of degree of automation. My thought is to
just take the art out of an operation and increase quality and consistency.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.