Gene Frenkle Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 The machinery need to replace 100 workers probably needs 4-5 workers to maintain and program - why would you replace labor with machines if you need as much labor to maintain the machines The main problem here is a lack of vision. Technology and efficiency improve quickly. Better robots and better batteries are always right around the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 The carbon footprint's probably pretty small. The environmental footprint is frickin' massive. That's what I assumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 The machinery need to replace 100 workers probably needs 4-5 workers to maintain and program - why would you replace labor with machines if you need as much labor to maintain the machines Please explain how your math works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 The machinery need to replace 100 workers probably needs 4-5 workers to maintain and program - why would you replace labor with machines if you need as much labor to maintain the machines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I assume he means those 4-5 would make as much as the 10 people that would be doing the work instead of the robot's. And if I'm starting to understand (understand, not agree with mind you) lybob's logic I think it's time to start drinking again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Plenty of fogies on this board rooting for John Henry. I'm a fogey, and I know better. If they're younger than me and don't understand the advantages of automation, then they're just stupid. John Henry thinks you're an a-hole. Lots of people do. I couldn't care less. The machinery need to replace 100 workers probably needs 4-5 workers to maintain and program - why would you replace labor with machines if you need as much labor to maintain the machines Your numbers are arbitrary, and your use of the word "worker" is synonymous with "drone". Do factory employees want more jobs and higher pay? The only way to do that in the US and have any hope of competing internationally is to automate factories and get technical training, preferably a tech or engineering degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 I assume he means those 4-5 would make as much as the 10 people that would be doing the work instead of the robot's. And if I'm starting to understand (understand, not agree with mind you) lybob's logic I think it's time to start drinking again. Except he said 100 not 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 I'm a fogey, and I know better. If they're younger than me and don't understand the advantages of automation, then they're just stupid. Lots of people do. I couldn't care less. Your numbers are arbitrary, and your use of the word "worker" is synonymous with "drone". Do factory employees want more jobs and higher pay? The only way to do that in the US and have any hope of competing internationally is to automate factories and get technical training, preferably a tech or engineering degree. His logic is that it's better to have a society with 100 people making $10k, than to have 5 people making $200k. -assuming equal costs and production. His society would assume a capped GDP economic system where 95 people would be out of work instead of getting jobs somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Except he said 100 not 10 And he said "labor," not "money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 His logic is that it's better to have a society with 100 people making $10k, than to have 5 people making $200k. -assuming equal costs and production. His society would assume a capped GDP economic system where 95 people would be out of work instead of getting jobs somewhere else. Again, his numbers are completely arbitrary, and by extension, so are any numbers plugged into his presumed methodology. People like Musk should be universally lauded, both for their ability to turn their vision into reality, and for their ability to do so within the onerous regulatory and restrictive environment we have in both the US and the rest of the world today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Again, his numbers are completely arbitrary, and by extension, so are any numbers plugged into his presumed methodology. People like Musk should be universally lauded, both for their ability to turn their vision into reality, and for their ability to do so within the onerous regulatory and restrictive environment we have in both the US and the rest of the world today. Musk didn't do that. Someone else made that happen. And he said "labor," not "money." We have to assume that he meant "capital" instead of "labor", otherwise it would be nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 What kind of government tax credit will I get for one of these Teslas, and will I be eligible for the Cash for Clunkers program? I hope he's wildly successful, why would one wish otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. Way too many people buy into the "robots are putting people out of work" BS - all that's really happening is they're creating a demand for higher skilled (and higher paid) labor while helping to reduce on-the-job injuries. It's a win-win. Well put. And I am a fan of anyone who wants to get us off this rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Except he said 100 not 10 Well then !@#$ if I know what he's talking about. And he said "labor," not "money." Ok so I don't start drinking again. Good because I like sobriety. Well until next week when I'm in WNY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 I hope he's wildly successful, why would one wish otherwise? Because Obama said that ATM's are the reason unemployment is high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) Dream big. Shoot for the stars. We definitely need more people like him. He will fail spectacularly in some of these things but we definitely need more Musks and less Wall Street money moguls. Even the people dancing a jig at the Tesla's problems miss the point. He's turned the auto industry, which seemed all but impenetrable to an outsider, on its ear. Except that he needed investor money to launch and maintain the company in the early years and yeah taxpayer money didn't hurt. You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. Way too many people buy into the "robots are putting people out of work" BS - all that's really happening is they're creating a demand for higher skilled (and higher paid) labor while helping to reduce on-the-job injuries. It's a win-win. High tech manufacturing is good and certainly the future but even lower tech manufacturing is good for jobs. Not everyone is a line worker in older style manufacturing. The economic impact of building plants, hiring higher level management along with lesser skilled labor is huge compared to sourcing goods made off-shore or south of the border. We'll never get back much of the large-scale manufacturing we've lost but IMO we've got to find ways to make more products here and competitively so. Edited August 3, 2016 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Musk didn't do that. Someone else made that happen. We have to assume that he meant "capital" instead of "labor", otherwise it would be nonsense. Yeah, because he's never posted nonsense before. Why not assume he meant hammers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) You will not be allowed to know that. Just trust them, it's GREEN. Speaking of green, the cash foot print in our bank account is pretty sizable. Why wouldn't he be doing well and innovative and the rest of the horseshite? Really tired of the Feds picking who wins. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html Edited August 3, 2016 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 People like Musk should be universally lauded, both for their ability to turn their vision into reality, and for their ability to do so within the onerous regulatory and restrictive environment we have in both the US and the rest of the world today. I think he has the "onerous regulatory and restrictive environment" covered. It appears his business model is exploiting the regulations. Economist refer to this as rent seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Speaking of green, the cash foot print in our bank account is pretty sizable. Why wouldn't he be doing well and innovative and the rest of the horseshite? Really tired of the Feds picking who wins. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html "Solar City is subsidized by the tax breaks given to taxpayers that install Solar City panels!" NO !@#$ING ****, YOU WHACKADOODLES! Your express intent was to jump-start "green" energy by subsidizing it. Now that they're actually WORKING, you DISAGREE with them? Nothing quite as nauseating as the people who push for subsidies and tax breaks turning around and bitching about people actually using them. They consider Solyndra a success story because they went bankrupt, and Solar City a failure because Musk is wealthy. !@#$ing retards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts