Quote:

If streamlining and automation are the answer, why not do away with Pharmacists? Build vending machines that require the insertion of doctor issued prescription cards. For that matter doctors can be phased out and replaced with computer databases and automated body scan robots. Surgeons are obsolete, robotic arms and laser guided scalpels, could do the job faster and cleaner.



And it'll happen, someday. Its a matter of progress.

As farms became more productive, they employed less workers, and used less land, yet produced more crops. Farmers were outraged, yet we moved on. Today, America produces something like 50x the amount of farm-goods we did 100 years ago, with 5% of the farms we had then. Progress is GOOD, people.

The same happened in the automotive world. It's happening in IT now, and it will happen in Medical, Financial, and more in the future, its only a matter of time.

Quote:

I am fully aware that putting peg A in hole B might not warrant $15/hour, however, I'm putting myself through college while working as a welder in a factory (I'm in a "skilled" position, state certified baby, and I'm earning AT the poverty line) and although automation is nice, YOU STILL NEED PEOPLE to monitor the machines and quality check the parts.



You made my point for me, even though you didn't mean to. I've bolded the portion that helps my stance. Later on in life, you might find yourself as this person, because you are highly skilled, and have the background needed. I have always said, there will always be a need for skilled workeres, its just at what skill level you are talking. I can see a quality control person earning $25-$35 / hr, once they can save the money by automating the rest of the workforce. That's where skill labour comes in. We're saying that high-school dropouts shouldn't get $15 / hr to press a button just because they are in a union, I say outsouce that job or automate it. Bottom line, profits.

I had an interesting debate last nite with a friend, and I'd like everyone elses take on this. Here's two scenarios, which one do you feel is better for the American economy?

a) An overseas owned corporation builds 25+ plants in the US, and employs 250k Americans. Their products are sold worldwide.

or

b) An American owned corporation builds 25+ plants overseas, and employs 250k foreigners. Their products are sold worldwide.

I see the merit in both, and I won't post my choice until after others have made theirs, and then I will post my reasonings, as well.

E1

1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L 1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo 1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo