So, You Want $15 An Hour?

[danielpalos]

Labor is not reserved. What solution? To what? You have not defined The Problem.

Sorry; I thought you understood basic economics. It is about reserving Labor through equal protection of our own laws to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment by compensating for it.

 

[Walt]

he said great great. learn to read.

Let's say your "great great grandpa" was 10 years old when he fled the French Revolution, and each generation is separated by 30 years, that would make you about 120 years old... IMPOSSIBLE

OK, let's say he was 10 years, and each generation is separated by 40 years, that makes you a bit older than 80... HIGHLY UNLIKELY

While one generation jump of 40 years would not be uncommon, four in a row would be very rare. You being over 80 (and posting) would also be rare.

The math says you are almost certainly lying. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that you are lying? Maybe, but this is not a criminal trial.

 

[Street Glider]

Self checkout still has a cashier monitoring the kiosks.

Of course.

But now the employer needs to pay only one or two people on per shift as opposed to 10...

 

[Nordberg]

Robots do not get sick. They do not steal. They do not make mistakes. That I why companies want them.
Robots break down. They need maintenance. They are expensive. They cannot handle power outages.
There is a lot in play before you invest in kiosks. It is not all about wages.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

[h=2]This message is hidden because Matt Dillon is on your ignore list.[/h]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Dude, no one gives a damn (even it it's true)....and your lineage has NOTHING to do with the blatant racism, bigotry and sheer proud ignorance that you consistently display on this board. And please explain to the reading audience how your lineage tale disproves JUST ONE item in the link I provided in no uncertain terms. If you can't, just STFU and go make a fool of yourself some where else, as you're just taking up space here.

What I pointed out regarding the OP stands valid.....or just WTF do you think happened to all those bank tellers that use to occupy those windows before the ATM's and direct deposit?

STFU, you pussy ass commie bitch! I'd bitchsmack you into a crying mess in a nanosecond.

You've never lived in the real world, I can tell. Academia?

And another bigoted right wing blowhard gets his ass handed to him in the chronology of the posts.

You're done, toodles. No sense in wasting more time and space on you. See you in a month when you've got your act together.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Robots do not get sick. They do not steal. They do not make mistakes. That I why companies want them.
Robots break down. They need maintenance. They are expensive. They cannot handle power outages.
There is a lot in play before you invest in kiosks. It is not all about wages.

But one thing is certain.....kiosks in, people's jobs out. I can't tell you how many times the auto-check out at a local store has gone on the fritz, causing TWICE the delays as only one cashier is on hand.

 

[Street Glider]

Robots do not get sick. They do not steal. They do not make mistakes. That I why companies want them.
Robots break down. They need maintenance. They are expensive. They cannot handle power outages.
There is a lot in play before you invest in kiosks. It is not all about wages.

They can be expensive, yes. But, in time, they'll pay for themselves.

If they break down, there are warranties in place. Maintenance? I would imagine that a service contract is either provided at the time of purchase. I know airport x-ray machines and one hour photo machines do.

There's no net gain or loss with a power outage. A human cashier isn't going to be able to ring up customer purchases if the power goes out, either...

 

[danielpalos]

...sure. How much more tax revenue will that higher minimum wage generate?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
Robots do not get sick. They do not steal. They do not make mistakes. That I why companies want them.
Robots break down. They need maintenance. They are expensive. They cannot handle power outages.
There is a lot in play before you invest in kiosks. It is not all about wages.

They can be expensive, yes. But, in time, they'll pay for themselves.

If they break down, there are warranties in place. Maintenance? I would imagine that a service contract is either provided at the time of purchase. I know airport x-ray machines and one hour photo machines do.

There's no net gain or loss with a power outage. A human cashier isn't going to be able to ring up customer purchases if the power goes out, either...

And the robots do NOT have the cognitive reasoning skills of humans to respond to questions and requests that a human has. No judgement capability where as a human can say, "hold on a second" and quickly settle the one item person who stepped off the line to exchange a purpose, or do other things without calling a manager or floor person most of the time.

Again, this automation above all mindset bodes well for the store owners and investors pockets, but puts a lot of people on unemployment and welfare ... and who are the folks who wail like banshees about their tax dollars going to social services for people "who are too lazy to work"?

 

[Street Glider]

And the robots do NOT have the cognitive reasoning skills of humans to respond to questions and requests that a human has. No judgement capability where as a human can say, "hold on a second" and quickly settle the one item person who stepped off the line to exchange a purpose, or do other things without calling a manager or floor person most of the time.

There will still be someone there to monitor the self-serve kiosks...

Again, this automation above all mindset bodes well for the store owners and investors pockets, but puts a lot of people on unemployment and welfare ... and who are the folks who wail like banshees about their tax dollars going to social services for people "who are too lazy to work"?

The purpose of a business is to make money, not to keep people off of welfare.

If someone is genuine in their desire to work, but they just can't find a job, I've no problem helping them. There has to be a time limit, though, on how long they can receive benefits, and the individual has to be able to show that he's actively looking for employment.

Now, someone who's not working simply because he doesn't want to, or is "too lazy"? Fuck 'em. Such a person should get nothing...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And the robots do NOT have the cognitive reasoning skills of humans to respond to questions and requests that a human has. No judgement capability where as a human can say, "hold on a second" and quickly settle the one item person who stepped off the line to exchange a purpose, or do other things without calling a manager or floor person most of the

time.



There will still be someone there to monitor the self-serve kiosks...

Again, this automation above all mindset bodes well for the store owners and investors pockets, but puts a lot of people on unemployment and welfare ... and who are the folks who wail like banshees about their tax dollars going to social services for people "who are too lazy to work"?

The purpose of a business is to make money, not to keep people off of welfare.

If someone is genuine in their desire to work, but they just can't find a job, I've no problem helping them. There has to be a time limit, though, on how long they can receive benefits, and the individual has to be able to show that he's actively looking for employment.

Now, someone who's not working simply because he doesn't want to, or is "too lazy"? Fuck 'em. Such a person should get nothing...

1. Stop and think what you're saying: Fire the workers (cashiers, stock, managers) and replace them with machines, but keep one or two technicians on stand-by in case the machines malfunction. Nice dream, so long as the rest of the store is fully automated to the degree which I previously described (and no, our technology is nowhere near that type of sophistication). If not, then you have problems of longer delays and frustrated customers who may go else where for their business. And if you don't have a geographic monopoly, that's what's going to happen.

2. You're first sentence is the oft parroted idiotic mantra that has no place in reality. Think, my man, THINK! People make a business work, people earn money, people buy products and commodities from businesses with that money. Without employment that pays enough for people to buy said items, the economy goes in the toilet....unless you're pushing for a "metropolis" type society in which you are part of the "above" class.

3. You're second sentence is just a recap of the current system.....which with current level of automation is essentially creating a two tier society in which low level paying and/or temporary jobs without full benefits essentially just serve the inherent wealthy and upper management class who reap the full benefits of the latter's labor. Meanwhile, the folk that labor to make all this possible (farmers, miners, custodians, cooks, taxi drivers, etc.) either can't or just barely afford living conditions.

And if the owners/management screw up, it's the lower level working folk who really pay the price.....examples being the Wall St., the Savings and Loan, the mortgage scandals of the last 20 years. If the job opportunities are shut down and/or out sourced, that is NOT the fault of the worker seeking employment. I always marvel at some teleprompter reader on the "news" stating employment stats and including "people who have stopped looking". I would REALLY like to see the polling question that says, "have you stopped seeking employment? For how long?" and ask how do the separate that question from the lack of jobs from employers.

4. obviously you missed the sarcasm of my "too lazy to work" line. That is the mantra used by folk of a mindset to dismiss the reality of employment and labor problems in this country....they just use that line as a general classification, whether warranted or not.

I would strongly suggest you bone up on the history of the Labor Movement in this country....because the lifestyle you currently enjoy is a direct result of it, whether you like/believe it or not.

 

[Street Glider]

1. Stop and think what you're saying: Fire the workers (cashiers, stock, managers) and replace them with machines, but keep one or two technicians on stand-by in case the machines malfunction. Nice dream, so long as the rest of the store is fully automated to the degree which I previously described (and no, our technology is nowhere near that type of sophistication). If not, then you have problems of longer delays and frustrated customers who may go else where for their business. And if you don't have a geographic monopoly, that's what's going to happen.

No one has said anything about firing managers, stock people, etc. It's solely the front of store cashiers. They're getting rid of cashiers in lieu of self-serve kiosks...

2. You're first sentence is the oft parroted idiotic mantra that has no place in reality. Think, my man, THINK! People make a business work, people earn money, people buy products and commodities from businesses with that money. Without employment that pays enough for people to buy said items, the economy goes in the toilet....unless you're pushing for a "metropolis" type society in which you are part of the "above" class.

I prefer humans over people. I have some automation in my businesses, but I put a high value on the people coming to work every day...

3. You're second sentence is just a recap of the current system.....which with current level of automation is essentially creating a two tier society in which low level paying and/or temporary jobs without full benefits essentially just serve the inherent wealthy and upper management class who reap the full benefits of the latter's labor. Meanwhile, the folk that labor to make all this possible (farmers, miners, custodians, cooks, taxi drivers, etc.) either can't or just barely afford living conditions.

Tell that to Wal-Mart. They're the ones doing it...

And if the owners/management screw up, it's the lower level working folk who really pay the price.....examples being the Wall St., the Savings and Loan, the mortgage scandals of the last 20 years. If the job opportunities are shut down and/or out sourced, that is NOT the fault of the worker seeking employment. I always marvel at some teleprompter reader on the "news" stating employment stats and including "people who have stopped looking". I would REALLY like to see the polling question that says, "have you stopped seeking employment? For how long?" and ask how do the separate that question from the lack of jobs from employers.

You're starting to go a bit far afield here...

4. obviously you missed the sarcasm of my "too lazy to work" line. That is the mantra used by folk of a mindset to dismiss the reality of employment and labor problems in this country....they just use that line as a general classification, whether warranted or not.

But the reality is that those people are out there...

I would strongly suggest you bone up on the history of the Labor Movement in this country....because the lifestyle you currently enjoy is a direct result of it, whether you like/believe it or not.

I don't need to. My OP was real succinct and clear. I'm talking about cashiers wanting $15 an hour and you're talking about a 20-year old mortgage scandal.

Again, I'm not the one doing this. Like anything else, automation has its good points and it has its bad points. What people need to wrap their heads around is the fact that business does not exist to give people jobs that pay too much for the performed task because, when that happens, employers will start looking at what Wal Mart's doing...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. Stop and think what you're saying: Fire the workers (cashiers, stock, managers) and replace them with machines, but keep one or two technicians on stand-by in case the machines malfunction. Nice dream, so long as the rest of the store is fully automated to the degree which I previously described (and no, our technology is nowhere near that type of sophistication). If not, then you have problems of longer delays and frustrated customers who may go else where for their business. And if you don't have a geographic monopoly, that's what's going to happen.

No one has said anything about firing managers, stock people, etc. It's solely the front of store cashiers. They're getting rid of cashiers in lieu of self-serve kiosks...

2. You're first sentence is the oft parroted idiotic mantra that has no place in reality. Think, my man, THINK! People make a business work, people earn money, people buy products and commodities from businesses with that money. Without employment that pays enough for people to buy said items, the economy goes in the toilet....unless you're pushing for a "metropolis" type society in which you are part of the "above" class.

I prefer humans over people. I have some automation in my businesses, but I put a high value on the people coming to work every day...

3. You're second sentence is just a recap of the current system.....which with current level of automation is essentially creating a two tier society in which low level paying and/or temporary jobs without full benefits essentially just serve the inherent wealthy and upper management class who reap the full benefits of the latter's labor. Meanwhile, the folk that labor to make all this possible (farmers, miners, custodians, cooks, taxi drivers, etc.) either can't or just barely afford living conditions.

Tell that to Wal-Mart. They're the ones doing it...

And if the owners/management screw up, it's the lower level working folk who really pay the price.....examples being the Wall St., the Savings and Loan, the mortgage scandals of the last 20 years. If the job opportunities are shut down and/or out sourced, that is NOT the fault of the worker seeking employment. I always marvel at some teleprompter reader on the "news" stating employment stats and including "people who have stopped looking". I would REALLY like to see the polling question that says, "have you stopped seeking employment? For how long?" and ask how do the separate that question from the lack of jobs from employers.

You're starting to go a bit far afield here...

. obviously you missed the sarcasm of my "too lazy to work" line. That is the mantra used by folk of a mindset to dismiss the reality of employment and labor problems in this country....they just use that line as a general classification, whether warranted or not.

But the reality is that those people are out there...

I would strongly suggest you bone up on the history of the Labor Movement in this country....because the lifestyle you currently enjoy is a direct result of it, whether you like/believe it or not.

I don't need to. My OP was real succinct and clear. I'm talking about cashiers wanting $15 an hour and you're talking about a 20-year old mortgage scandal.

Again, I'm not the one doing this. Like anything else, automation has its good points and it has its bad points. What people need to wrap their heads around is the fact that business does not exist to give people jobs that pay too much for the performed task because, when that happens, employers will start looking at what Wal Mart's doing...

1. Okay, my bad. But what you propose STILL effects the entire store operation, whether you like/believe it or not. I'll give you an example: my local CVS started out with 4 cashiers. It added 2 auto check out machines, but kept the cashiers....THIS WORKED, AND MORE CUSTOMERS COULD GET SERVICED. Then the main office bean counters figured more machines, less personnel, less salaries & benefits. So now there are 4 machines and 1 cashier. Bigger lines, the machines foul up periodically, and if the cashier's hands are full, one of the floor stock folk/manager has to stop what they're doing and fix the problem. So if you go full auto cashiers, you end up with periodic back ups, etc. Cashiers can get price checks and such quicker than pressing a button and waiting for a manager/stock person to come see what's up. Like I said, if you don't have geographic monopoly, customers are going to go where they get better/live service. No matter how you slice it, the owners sacrifice customer service for a bigger net profit...at the expense of the employees. And as techs figure out more ways to eliminate the human element, the problem I pointed out grows.

2. Your first sentence makes no sense, as humans are people and vice versa. So you prefer SOME people to give your work the human feel, but you could care less about those who are put on unemployment insurance because of (mostly unnecessary) automation. Weird.

3. And your attitude is contributing to the same result...worse because your way just eliminates a good paying job that can force someone to go work for Wal-Mart slave wages .... think bank tellers that lost their jobs to ATM's and direct deposit.

4. On the contrary, I'm relating in real life one of the end results of your mindset. One of the MAIN reasons for unemployment is a lack of available jobs .... that's not the unemployed person's fault. So, if you unnecessarily automate because you just can't stand someone getting paid more than you think they should and/or want a bigger net profit at the expense of a person's livelihood, never complain about the gov't extending unemployment because business owners screw up or outsource (or in the case of the Obama administration, just withhold job opportunities because you don't like a perceived progressive Democrat black man in charge).

5. Never said there wasn't. I'm just pointing out how that mantra is used to paint anyone who is unemployed for more than the "allotted" time. #3 & #4 elaborate my point.

6. Nice try, but you know that is not what the chronology of the posts shows. My examples are a direct response to your statements and assertions. It's called comprehensive reading. Again, you parrot absurd points that were already addressed and deconstructed. Being stubborn is no justification, nor does it make my critical analysis of your mind set any less valid.

 

[Street Glider]

1. Okay, my bad. But what you propose STILL effects the entire store operation, whether you like/believe it or not. I'll give you an example: my local CVS started out with 4 cashiers. It added 2 auto check out machines, but kept the cashiers....THIS WORKED, AND MORE CUSTOMERS COULD GET SERVICED. Then the main office bean counters figured more machines, less personnel, less salaries & benefits. So now there are 4 machines and 1 cashier. Bigger lines, the machines foul up periodically, and if the cashier's hands are full, one of the floor stock folk/manager has to stop what they're doing and fix the problem. So if you go full auto cashiers, you end up with periodic back ups, etc. Cashiers can get price checks and such quicker than pressing a button and waiting for a manager/stock person to come see what's up. Like I said, if you don't have geographic monopoly, customers are going to go where they get better/live service. No matter how you slice it, the owners sacrifice customer service for a bigger net profit...at the expense of the employees. And as techs figure out more ways to eliminate the human element, the problem I pointed out grows.

You're preaching to the wrong choir, bro. If Wal-Mart is going to sacrifice customer service, I'm sure that's because some high-paid bean counter told them that was preferable to paying cashiers $15 an hour...

2. Your first sentence makes no sense, as humans are people and vice versa. So you prefer SOME people to give your work the human feel, but you could care less about those who are put on unemployment insurance because of (mostly unnecessary) automation. Weird.

This conversation's going to go in an entirely different direction if you insist on stupidly putting words in my mouth. I will always prefer a human employee over automation...

3. And your attitude is contributing to the same result...worse because your way just eliminates a good paying job that can force someone to go work for Wal-Mart slave wages .... think bank tellers that lost their jobs to ATM's and direct deposit.

My attitude? All I've done is express my opinion that those who demand higher wages, just because they want them, probably aren't going to get them...

4. On the contrary, I'm relating in real life one of the end results of your mindset. One of the MAIN reasons for unemployment is a lack of available jobs .... that's not the unemployed person's fault. So, if you unnecessarily automate because you just can't stand someone getting paid more than you think they should and/or want a bigger net profit at the expense of a person's livelihood, never complain about the gov't extending unemployment because business owners screw up or outsource (or in the case of the Obama administration, just withhold job opportunities because you don't like a perceived progressive Democrat black man in charge).

I'm going to respectfully ask that you remove your head from your ass.

My companies have very little automation. I like it that way. But when I drive around town, I see "NOW HIRING" signs hanging in stores in strip malls where there's always someone begging for money at the parking lot exit. Offer one of those guys a job and see what happens. Those are the folks I have little interest in helping, because I'm pretty sure they could be helping themselves...

5. Never said there wasn't. I'm just pointing out how that mantra is used to paint anyone who is unemployed for more than the "allotted" time. #3 & #4 elaborate my point.

No, they don't, because you're talking about my mindset and my attitude when, in fact, my attitude and mindset is one which will always try to avoid automating the job tasks in my companies. I don't know why you think I'm in favor of automation. I'm not...

6. Nice try, but you know that is not what the chronology of the posts shows. My examples are a direct response to your statements and assertions. It's called comprehensive reading. Again, you parrot absurd points that were already addressed and deconstructed. Being stubborn is no justification, nor does it make my critical analysis of your mind set any less valid.

My "assertions"? What I've expressed here is actually happening. Cashiers at the local Wal-Mart are being let go and self-serve kiosks are being installed. That's reality...

 

[Life is Golden]

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You're preaching to the wrong choir, bro. If Wal-Mart is going to sacrifice customer service, I'm sure that's because some high-paid bean counter told them that was preferable to paying cashiers $15 an hour......

Agreed. It's all about the balance sheet. Walmart has a fiduciary responsibility to every stock shareholder, not their customers. If they do stupid shit that loses money, investors will go elsewhere. They'll do what is most profitable in the long run. If that means turning the entire store into a giant vending machine, they'll do it.

Let's not forget that employees cost more than their wages. There's insurance, mandated training, there's life problems such as sick employees which must be replaced on short notice, etc. NONE of those problems are machine problems. Pay a person to watch the machines and another to go to all the stores to service the machines. Easy-peasy.

Dumbass jobs are going the way of the switchboard operator and the third pilot in airliners: replaced by machines.

 

[Street Glider]

Agreed. It's all about the balance sheet. Walmart has a fiduciary responsibility to every stock shareholder, not their customers. If they do stupid shit that loses money, investors will go elsewhere. They'll do what is most profitable in the long run. If that means turning the entire store into a giant vending machine, they'll do it.

Exactly, I'm fascinated at how so many people believe that businesses exist to provide jobs. Businesses, first and foremost, exist to make money. Making sure your employees are happy is part and parcel to that, but that doesn't mean rolling over and overpaying someone to perform some menial task. In the case of Wal-Mart, they've discovered that, for the most part, their customers can do the work of the cashiers, and they don't have to pay them...

Let's not forget that employees cost more than their wages. There's insurance, mandated training, there's life problems such as sick employees which must be replaced on short notice, etc. NONE of those problems are machine problems. Pay a person to watch the machines and another to go to all the stores to service the machines. Easy-peasy.

Pretty much, yeah, although you'd actually need a couple of people to perform those tasks (people need days off, breaks, etc). While I still prefer to hire an actual person, I certainly understand why others go in a different direction...

Dumbass jobs are going the way of the switchboard operator and the third pilot in airliners: replaced by machines.

I was in New York City a couple of years ago, and my smokin' hot Puerto Rican girlfriend and I found this bar that had a "Bloody Mary Bar Brunch" on Sundays. They had their Bloody Mary mix in dispensers and all the fixin's you'd need in bar trays along the bar. The only interaction you needed was when you bought your preferred vodka from the bartender. You actually mixed the drink yourself. Of course, people ate this up, and the place was packed both Sundays we were there. People love making their own Bloody Mary. What it did for the bar, though, was free the bartender up from having to take the time to mix drinks. He just poured shots, which takes far less time. He was, therefore, able to spend more time with customers who were less enamored with Bloody Mary's.

It was a win-win for the bar...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Exactly, I'm fascinated at how so many people believe that businesses exist to provide jobs. ...

Agreed. Businesses create profit for their investors. Period. The rest is just the price of doing business. If employees price themselves out of a job or the Democrats do it for them, then businesses will seek the most profitable alternative.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. Okay, my bad. But what you propose STILL effects the entire store operation, whether you like/believe it or not. I'll give you an example: my local CVS started out with 4 cashiers. It added 2 auto check out machines, but kept the cashiers....THIS WORKED, AND MORE CUSTOMERS COULD GET SERVICED. Then the main office bean counters figured more machines, less personnel, less salaries & benefits. So now there are 4 machines and 1 cashier. Bigger lines, the machines foul up periodically, and if the cashier's hands are full, one of the floor stock folk/manager has to stop what they're doing and fix the problem. So if you go full auto cashiers, you end up with periodic back ups, etc. Cashiers can get price checks and such quicker than pressing a button and waiting for a manager/stock person to come see what's up. Like I said, if you don't have geographic monopoly, customers are going to go where they get better/live service. No matter how you slice it, the owners sacrifice customer service for a bigger net profit...at the expense of the employees. And as techs figure out more ways to eliminate the human element, the problem I pointed out grows.

You're preaching to the wrong choir, bro. If Wal-Mart is going to sacrifice customer service, I'm sure that's because some high-paid bean counter told them that was preferable to paying cashiers $15 an hour...

2. Your first sentence makes no sense, as humans are people and vice versa. So you prefer SOME people to give your work the human feel, but you could care less about those who are put on unemployment insurance because of (mostly unnecessary) automation. Weird.

This conversation's going to go in an entirely different direction if you insist on stupidly putting words in my mouth. I will always prefer a human employee over automation...

3. And your attitude is contributing to the same result...worse because your way just eliminates a good paying job that can force someone to go work for Wal-Mart slave wages .... think bank tellers that lost their jobs to ATM's and direct deposit.

My attitude? All I've done is express my opinion that those who demand higher wages, just because they want them, probably aren't going to get them...

4. On the contrary, I'm relating in real life one of the end results of your mindset. One of the MAIN reasons for unemployment is a lack of available jobs .... that's not the unemployed person's fault. So, if you unnecessarily automate because you just can't stand someone getting paid more than you think they should and/or want a bigger net profit at the expense of a person's livelihood, never complain about the gov't extending unemployment because business owners screw up or outsource (or in the case of the Obama administration, just withhold job opportunities because you don't like a perceived progressive Democrat black man in charge).

I'm going to respectfully ask that you remove your head from your ass.

My companies have very little automation. I like it that way. But when I drive around town, I see "NOW HIRING" signs hanging in stores in strip malls where there's always someone begging for money at the parking lot exit. Offer one of those guys a job and see what happens. Those are the folks I have little interest in helping, because I'm pretty sure they could be helping themselves...

5. Never said there wasn't. I'm just pointing out how that mantra is used to paint anyone who is unemployed for more than the "allotted" time. #3 & #4 elaborate my point.

No, they don't, because you're talking about my mindset and my attitude when, in fact, my attitude and mindset is one which will always try to avoid automating the job tasks in my companies. I don't know why you think I'm in favor of automation. I'm not...

6. Nice try, but you know that is not what the chronology of the posts shows. My examples are a direct response to your statements and assertions. It's called comprehensive reading. Again, you parrot absurd points that were already addressed and deconstructed. Being stubborn is no justification, nor does it make my critical analysis of your mind set any less valid.

My "assertions"? What I've expressed here is actually happening. Cashiers at the local Wal-Mart are being let go and self-serve kiosks are being installed. That's reality...

1. Strange to agree on this point, yet support another contradictory one. Let's see if we can clarify our stances.

2. Evidently, you have a problem putting in print precisely what is on your mind...either that or your incapable of recognizing self contradiction. I just follow your words....pity you don't like the conclusions of what you say/support. You can't support automation replacing folk and then say you prefer people keeping their jobs instead. Either you're for or against...no grey area.

3. Ahh, another attempt to justify a position you've just said you're not taking. So now your saying that people deserve to be replaced by machines because they have the audacity to (GASP!) ask for a wage increase? Hmmm, ever hear of COLA? Wonder why permanent Wal-Mart employees at one point had to supplement with food stamps and such? Or local, state or federal employees have to strike in order to get some type of raise after YEARS of a fixed salary? But hey, according to you the fix is just replace them with machines where ever possible.....then cut off unemployment because they can't get a new job at a decent salary due to owner/management decisions. No don't waste my time with some smoke blowing BS to deny the logical conclusion of what you put forth, okay?

4. Your first sentence signifies an upcoming attempt to misrepresent what I put forth and then lie about what you previously wrote....typical ploy by an insipidly stubborn person who can't admit when they are wrong, much less concede a point. The rest of your little tale is chock full of dubious claims and myopic justification for what I've pointed out is just management callousness towards employees. Let's examine your story: your "companies"? Are you an owner/CEO of a franchise or such? And if you have very little automation, then you and I are in sync regarding less automation, more people in jobs. You're not replacing people with machines for fiscal net gain. Good on ya. However, the second part of your story is loaded with supposition and conjecture, and just out right BS. Do you go into those stores with help wanted signs and ask what qualifications they are looking for? What salary are they offering? Remember when during a townhall the Shrub was amazed that a working mom had to hold 3 jobs to make ends meet? Figure it out. And I have yet to come across a day laborer who turned down a job. Now, if you're approaching guys who are in bad shape and have been on the streets for some time, they are either not exactly emotionally stable or you're not offering simple day labor. This part of your story just doesn't add up. This is why I take you to task for exactly what you say...and why you get pissed when the logical conclusions prove you to be less than sympathetic to those replaced by machines.

5. My man, you are full of it. Plain and simple. You can't parrot various mantras that generalize people being unemployed to justify automation, then say you are against such. That's just plain hypocrisy...a sheer stupidity on your part as the chronology of the post will reveal your folly to the objective reader despite your denial. This is the 2nd time you've referred to "your companies"....which explains a lot. You have the defensive mindset of a large business owner/corporate head, which will justify various actions that benefit the bottom line ($$). But as I demonstrated throughout our exchanges, the reality to the employee counters such.

6. How stupid of you to parrot a moot point that I introduced as an example as to why automation beyond a certain point is unnecessary & bad for the economy. The chronology of the posts shows your folly. Clearly, you've got nothing but repetition and intellectually dishonest attempts to avoid conceding my original points. As I said before, insipid stubbornness doesn't cut it. So I leave you to the predictable smoke blowing, false allegations/statements and repetitive dubious claims.