Message-ID: <33429086.3037@compusmart.ab.ca>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 09:59:50 -0700
From: Dave & Dana Landro <dlandro@compusmart.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro,alt.energy.renewable,sci.space.policy,sci.chem,sci.psychology.psychotherapy,de.sci.philosophie,sci.med,sci.environment,sci.lang,sci.engr.mech,sci.optics,sci.energy,sci.econ,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Notice - Social Issues
References: <5g2k33$k2n@news.mel.aone.net.au> <33259D27.1295@gw-tech.com> <zIWMzwuzqbxF090yn@mail.globec.com.au> <5hcqr6$n7@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <333c1635.0@nitrogen-c.themall.net> <ejones-ya023580003003972114120001@206.15.64.37>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: remote424.compusmart.ab.ca
Lines: 109
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news.dfci.harvard.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.agtac.net!ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca!remote424.compusmart.ab.ca
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:254977 sci.math:191345 sci.astro:169312 sci.space.policy:71052 sci.chem:92413 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:26209 sci.med:209668 sci.environment:134103 sci.lang:73367 sci.engr.mech:36419 sci.optics:28359 sci.energy:68189 sci.econ:68351 sci.skeptic:279654

Earle Jones wrote:
> 
> In article <333c1635.0@nitrogen-c.themall.net>, kdpoptics@earthlink.net
> (Copperhead Jim) wrote:
> 
> >Elaine Gallegos <saturn@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Simeon Scott <simeon@mail.globec.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>: It only puts people out of work if you a) design the machines to replace
> >>:  people and b) expect to do the same amount of work with less people,
> >>:  instead of expecting to do more work with the same number.
> >
> >Are there no work houses, are there no debtor's prisons?
> =---------=
> 
> To:  Elaine, Simeon, and Copperhead Jim (and others):
> 
> Automation puts people out of work, right?
> 
> We design and build machines that replace people on assembly lines and jobs
> are lost, right?
> 
> There are two important schools of thought that follow this line of thinking.
> 
> First, automation reduces the cost of producing products, thereby
> increasing the profits of the company.  If it were not so, owners of
> companies (stockholders, expressing their opinion through their elected
> Board members) would not do it. Higher profits means higher dividends to
> the owners.
> 
> Therefore, they do it.
> 
> And, if they did not do it, their competitors (in Japan, Taiwan, Korea,
> wherever) would do it.  And wherever it is done, the cost of products and
> therefore the selling price of these products, comes down. And companies
> that automate win business against their competition.
> 
> Therefore, in order to compete, automation is required.  Jobs must be
> sacrificed in order to stay in business.
> 
> Tough stuff, right?
> 
> Now, let's think about another side of this issue.
> 
> In the US, which companies are responsible for the greatest economic
> growth, the greatest profitability, the largest number of new jobs in the
> world today?
> 
> Answer:  The companies with the greatest automation.
> 
> Ironic, isn't it?  It's amazing that the companies with the greatest
> automation (eliminating jobs through technology) have generated the
> greatest number of jobs in the world.
> 
> That is hard to digest, and I understand that.  If your friend loses his or
> her job through automation, you must feel that automation is bad, and that
> jobs are more important.  But overall economic growth, increased
> profitability, and the creation of millions of new jobs, is critical to our
> country.
> 
> The new industries, including software, computers, telecommunications, etc.
> have millions of job openings for people.
> 
> It is true that retraining is required; our government should accept the
> responsibility for much of the cost of this retraining.
> 
> Electronic Data Systems, a company that specializes in advising companies
> on making their information systems more efficient, has openings for 6,000
> new staff.  And they are having a hard time filling these vacancies.
> 
> I live in Silicon Valley, California.  Every Monday, in the San Francisco
> Chronicle, there are five or six *pages* of "Help Wanted" advertisements.
> There are hundreds, even thousands of jobs available here.
> 
> It is true, that if you work in a tractor factory in Moline, Illinois, the
> availability of jobs for programmers in San Jose, California is not of much
> interest.  But it should guide your future decisions.  What will you do to
> educate your children?  How will you guide them to maximize their success
> in the future?
> 
> The economic world is in transition;  it is *always* so.  The future is a
> moving target.  Maximize your capabilities and you will maximize your
> opportunities.  The only answer is education.  As the Boy Scouts always
> say, "Be Prepared".  Learn.  Study and learn.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> earle
> -----
>                __
>             __/\_\
>            /\_\/_/
>            \/_/\_\   earle
>               \/_/   jones

Actually, while preparing a paper on economic issues I came across an
interesting article which claimed that technology/automation has created
as many positions as it has eliminated.  The only problem with
increasing automation is that in general, low skill-level jobs
disappear.  As a result, unless automating companies invest in employee
re-training (or themselves can afford to make the investment
themselves), unemployment will result from automation, as low-skill
level employees are displaced from the work force.  On all other
accounts, technology is in fact, not a destroyer of jobs.  On this
account (low-skilled workers), the trend toward automation makes a
well-trained workforce even more of a necessity than ever before.

Dana Landro in Canada
