user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
The problem with corporations taking over farms, is now the food chain is now processed and now everything we eat is full of chemicals and the animalsthat are bred are little more than food machines.
If you want to see something shocking,please go to www.themeatrix.com
good question, but no. Most jobs that robots have taken over are mindless assembly work, tellers are not well payed jobs. I will never be replaced by a computer. In many cases computers have actually created jobs due to unreliablity and the massive amount of useless info we all database.
by ABC on Thu Oct 07, 04 5:35pm
[+]
Now *this* is an intriguing question! And well presented. jenny17 ... I have hope new for you! ;-)
While I do agree that the trend appears to be leading in this direction, I have to vote No.
Because I cannot assume their will be any more Social Conscience in the future than exists today.
The probable result, I suggest, is that the ranks of poverty will continue to swell as jobs become ever-increasingly hard to come by. The relative glut of labour will further reduce wages.
Basically, we will continue to shrink the middle class and grow the ranks of the poor.
The wealthy will continue to accumulate wealth. The gap will turn into a chasm and continue to yawn.
One complication: As the consumer base continues to suffer attrition, the potential income for the already-wealthy will level off. That may or may not have soem kind of disruptive effect. Or it may stabilize into a steady state of a relatively small group of the affluent and ... the rest of humanity.
Technological advances require people with technological skill. You say "companies that are taking advantage of technology need less manpower". Well robots may be taking over factories, but these are jobs with no rewards for people.
When Henry Ford enisioned the concept of division of labour, he had in mind a place where highly skilled machinists and mechanics would be working repetitive jobs that were, in truth, boring and unrewarding, and that didn't require skilled labour at all.
That's why technology is advancing in these areas.
Technology will always create rewarding jobs, you just have to upgrade yourself with a technological education to reap the benifits. When you have a skill, nobody can take that away from you.
"Technological advances require people with technological skill."
Okay, I'm going to take the bait and bite on this one. Most of the people on this web site are articulate and seemingly well educated. However, there are those who cannot learn to use a computer, cannot comprehend even simple arithmetic, some people cannot even learn to read or write. Jobs for those people have been running short for years. No longer can a person like this put twisty ties on a baggy all day long or put caps on milk bottles, or milk cows, toss hay, etc, when machines have taken those menial jobs.
I think, though I'm not completely sure, that the idea of this ballot is whether or not large corporations who have taken advantage of the vast wealth of technology, and eliminated many hundreds of what we may call 'lesser jobs', bear a responsiblity for helping to support those who have lost their jobs in such a way, and if that would contribute to the creation of a more socialistic economy around the world.
I'm not sure I understand how socialism fits into this debate.
I think she is equating Socialism with "a Welfare State" ... a common misperception among the US Right.
Good call; I am so used to automatically translating that that I missed it!
I have to acknowledge: jappy makes some excellent points.
Companies that lay-off semi-skilled workers rarely do so because of "technological advances". That technology is already available and the cost of laying off people then re-tooling with some new machinery, robotics, etc. is huge.
These people are laid- off more likely because the company's greed for a wider profit margin, and cheaper production and labour costs in another town, province, or country for that matter.
In the end, it's the working people who pay for social assistance, not companies.
honestly, um_yeah, can you say that with a straight face when working persons making under 30,000 a year pay a grand total of about 7% of the overall taxes that are paid in the United States?
|
|
