I need to see more substantive proof that we automated our jobs away than andrew yang stating such, he is the only person I have seen who says that; it makes more sense to me that we have lost factory work to China because they have been undercutting our labor costs with their slave labor

yes, and he's done absolutely nothing to revive, say, steel jobs

automobile assembly line is very easy to research

YEs and computers eliminated millions of clerical jobs and the tractor eliminated millions of agriculture jobs. I am certain that the wheel eliminated basket-hauling jobs.....

also, what about the people that physically connected telephone connections? Tele-operators or whatever they were called

tech always replaces human workers, for better or for worse

Taking the long view doesn't mean one is taking responsibility for one's actions. It can just as easily apply to a very limited goal, like making as much cold, hard cash as possible over a long period of time.

@TeeTotaler you assume a lot about people who head corporations

telephone wire, holy fuck, that's going back aways

trump bad

it's just an example

give me money

Basically, the business model of the British East India Company.

there wasn't even a telephone connection from Berlin to Potsdam until after the first world war

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/24/a-study-finds-nearly-half-of-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-automation

And I think he has done something to bring back steel by de-regulating energy. It takes a fuckton of energy to run an industrial kiln. Lower energy costs make steel manufacture more viable.

and I assume more about publicly owned corps @calman21

There is no incentive to not automate low skill jobs

private owned corporations are far more moral and effective

except when low skill jobs want 15/hr and exceed the cost of automation

i don't know enough on the subject of private vs public corporations and their actions to make an argument against what u are saying

Reduced overhead
Reduced liability
Increased production capacity
Increased profit margins

The list goes on

The incentive to not automate away low skill jobs is the fact that the people who work at mcdonalds are the people who work low skill jobs

papa johns is a fairly good example. that corp had a lot of good benefits and treated employees well and did a lot of donations etc when it was privately owned

became shit when it went publicly owned

But sure machines increase the productivity of workers. Dirty little secret America has some of the most productive industrial labor on the planet. It is not complicated as to why. A man with a nail gun can do the work of 10 men with hammers.

That made no sense

I don't either, I'm basically allowing myself to be phased out of the conversation. I just need it made clear that an increase in net profit is the first priority of corporations. for good or ill, that's why we let them exist

mine? @Tiberius

The incentive to not automate jobs is because people work there?

Calman

Like all those people who worked on assembly lines?

honestly the only jobs with resistance from AI replacement would be ones that have something that AI isn't currently capable of doing. Things like creativity based skills

if nature can do it then it can be replicated

Pshaw. Build a robaot that can fix your sink.....

so its inevitable that AI would become very close to humans in every aspect

But not everyome can be successfully creatively skilled

yes, if the corporations erase low skill labor jobs and replace them with machines, low skill labors will not acquire a wage with which they can spend on whatever, and, in many aspects of the economy, low skill labor's spending contribute to the profitablility of a corporation

Basic supply/demand

Rather build a robot that can fix your sink that costs less than a plumber. The 'creatives' will be replaced first.