McJobs Threatened; Collapse of Capitalism Imminent

[Provost Harrison]

Exactly Kro, that is my point about why they are being killed nowadays. And when people w@nk in your burgers, it really puts you off...

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
McDonalds is by all standards the crapiest crap food around. At least were I live.

They sell food at your McDonalds?

[Giancarlo]

Collapse of capitalism is imminent? What kind of idiot could say something like that?

[Provost Harrison]

Well the collapse of capitalism is imminent. When the workers unite and hang the borgeoisie from the lamp posts and establish an egalitarian workers' state...

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

Collapse of Capitalism Imminent

Is this one of those cases where if you say it enough times it might actually happen?

The facts demonstrate that it isn't

By the way, did you read that?

"We want to be contemporary, hip and today," Charlie Bell, chief operating officer of McDonald's, told reporters this week during a rare full-day look behind the scenes at the company's suburban Chicago operations.

So they want to be hip!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well the collapse of capitalism is imminent. When the workers unite and hang the borgeoisie from the lamp posts and establish an egalitarian workers' state...

You are funny... this isn't the 19th century.

[Kropotkin]

I have to agree that Ronald MacDonald is one hip dude.

[Provost Harrison]

Hip? That's sooooo 1972

McDonalds are so long in the tooth nowadays the only kind of hip they are going to get it a replacement one

[Sandman]

At the very least, it'll mean any end to those sentimental manipulative McDonalds commercials that have been polluting British TV recently.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by The Templar

Marx said capitalism would eventually be superceded.

That's like saying that it will rain sooner or later. But the point is: what will superceed it? Maybe a better capitalism?

The good thing about capitalism is that it recognizes that (despite being the best of the existing systems) it is not a perfect system and always is ready to be perfectioned and fixed. People who think that the present capitalism is the top, does everything well and cannot be improved are as dangerous as any other radicals.

In many ways he was correct. Evidence? The rise of socialism and social democracy in Europe.

That's a good evidence. You only have to do at what socialism and social democracy has done for Germany The former motor of the EU is now in the tail wagon...

Or... you can also look at what socialism did for Baleares Island (you know, those islands at the East of Spain in the Meditarrenean sea) which lost 25% of the tourism in 4 years thanks to the "social and environmental protection" policies.

But if you want a really good example you can look at the two Koreas for a comparison. Or at Taiwan and China, or Hong Kong and China.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Kidicious


See Smileys firs post. How can capitalism survive without jobs? It can't. There is no justification for capitalism unless people have jobs.

Sure... like Henry Ford's invention for making cars faster and cheaper (which had a lot more impact that this "burguer automization" can have) destroyed capitalism.

Wait! Wasn't he who caused the Great Depression?

[Kropotkin]

Maybe, if you actually read smileys first post, you'de understand what kid is impying and you could write a decent answer instead.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by OliverFA

That's like saying that it will rain sooner or later. But the point is: what will superceed it? Maybe a better capitalism?

Is capitalism just a better feudalism?

But seriously, suffiecient roboticization will put productivity (manufacturing and service) through the roof with less people doing work. Less people doing work wil mean greater profit margins at first. But with less workers comes less people with disposable incomes. So less sales of goods and services. At some point technology will make capitalism a non-viable form of economy. Capitalism will go obsolete, and a new method for controlling the distribution of resources will be necessary.

The interesting thing is, Micky D's cutting jobs is most likely going to reduce the discretionary purchasing power of lower and lower middle class teens. This will have a negtive impact on the fashion, entertainment (e.g. movies, music, video games) industries. Thus this could drive up prices for the rest of us.

As Hegel (or Marx) would say, each historical moment contains its own unraveling.

[Kropotkin]

It's hower not like this a new kind of problem in modern economy. When such a concept as unemployment started to appear the establishment often reacted as if it was the unemployed that was lazy and didn't want to work. In the pre-industrial society there was no such thing as unemployment as in a modern economy.

If the unemployment figures reaches some critical number and these people cannot find alternative sources of income the system might go into a schock. If a large bulk of the labour force have no real chance to find employment it would lead to all kinds of trouble.

[:) Smiley]

Now that I think about it the decreasing number of jobs is a GOOD thing for most of the industrialized world, though maybe not so much America.

Right now as the population ages, there are more and more people retired compared to people in the workforce. Those retired people still eat, buy goods, and use services. Therefore, the number of jobs must go down through automation, or people will either have to work longer or pay more for food/goods/services.

The USA is a different situation though as there is constantly a flow of immigrants, which gives this country an artificially high percentage of people in the workforce. Since supply of immigrant labor always exceeds demand, reducing entry-level jobs may not be so good for the economy. It all depends on the severity of the job cuts though.

[Kidicious]

Kro,

Interesting that you should bring up Solow's Principle. In the US at least, productivity slowed in the 70's, but then picked up again in the 80's and 90's. Now it's still increasing at about the same pace as the 90's. I'm sure it might slow again, but I'm not such a firm believer in Solow's Principle any more.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by OliverFA


Sure... like Henry Ford's invention for making cars faster and cheaper (which had a lot more impact that this "burguer automization" can have) destroyed capitalism.

Wait! Wasn't he who caused the Great Depression?

Yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Automation will never cause a collapse of capitalism. Think - automation lowers costs, and therefore prices will be cheaper (in the long run). Think, if EVERYTHING was automated and nobody had to work, everything would be free, right? Because if no one had money, charging money for a product would be pointless. However, if the machines cost nothing to operate/construct/install, then no one would CARE about getting money. However, if they do require money to work, then you HAVE A NEW JOB MARKET. Thus, nothing fails.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Smiley
Now that I think about it the decreasing number of jobs is a GOOD thing for most of the industrialized world, though maybe not so much America.

Right now as the population ages, there are more and more people retired compared to people in the workforce. Those retired people still eat, buy goods, and use services. Therefore, the number of jobs must go down through automation, or people will either have to work longer or pay more for food/goods/services.

The USA is a different situation though as there is constantly a flow of immigrants, which gives this country an artificially high percentage of people in the workforce. Since supply of immigrant labor always exceeds demand, reducing entry-level jobs may not be so good for the economy. It all depends on the severity of the job cuts though.

The unemployment rate when the baby boomers retire is hard to predict. It depends on how much the govts and central banks react to the transition. If they do nothing there will be inflation because of wage growth. If they fight inflation the unemployment rate is likely to be just as high and they will probably throw the economy into a deflationary spiral. I'm betting on the latter scenerio. Historically govts and central banks are not good at managing the economy in a transition. The chance of success is very low.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by skywalker
Automation will never cause a collapse of capitalism. Think - automation lowers costs, and therefore prices will be cheaper (in the long run).

In the long run we're all dead.

Originally posted by skywalker
Think, if EVERYTHING was automated and nobody had to work, everything would be free, right?

It is impossible for everything to be free in a capitalist economy.

Originally posted by skywalker
Because if no one had money, charging money for a product would be pointless. However, if the machines cost nothing to operate/construct/install, then no one would CARE about getting money. However, if they do require money to work, then you HAVE A NEW JOB MARKET. Thus, nothing fails.

You're completely neglecting how we would get from here to there in the capitalist system given the assumption that people are self interested.

[The diplomat]

What I don't get is how can the Dems wine and moan about how bad the economy and of course how it is all because of Bush's tax cuts?

It is there pet special interest group, the trial lawyers, that are harming the economy. These lawsuits against tobacco companies, Mc Donald's, telemarketers, are threatening millions of jobs!

If you want the economy to pick up, then don't kill millions of job by suing companies left and right! D'uh!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
In the long run we're all dead.

So?

It is impossible for everything to be free in a capitalist economy.

Exactly. My point is, that since there will be costs associated with these machines, those costs have to be paid to SOMEONE. Thus, there is increased demand for a product, leading to more job openings so that supply can meet demand.

You're completely neglecting how we would get from here to there in the capitalist system given the assumption that people are self interested.

I'm assuming you're referring to the scenario where there are no costs associated with contructing, installing, or operating these machines. If that were true (it never will be), then ANYONE could get one, and thus they would be able to provide the product to themselves.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious In the long run we're all dead.

So?

Exactly. So? Who knows what will happen in the long run. In the short run lower prices don't mean full employment. If we don't or can't fix short run problems we will all be dead in the long run.

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

It is impossible for everything to be free in a capitalist economy.

Exactly. My point is, that since there will be costs associated with these machines, those costs have to be paid to SOMEONE. Thus, there is increased demand for a product, leading to more job openings so that supply can meet demand.

You will either get this right off the bat or you won't get it at all. If the machines create more jobs than there were previously that is not a productivity improvement. It's just the opposite.

[Kropotkin]

Interesting that you should bring up Solow's Principle.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here as I've never heard about the Solow principle. I mentioned the so called Solow paradox that states that computers can be found everywhere but in the productivity figures. As far as I know, investments in computers did not contribute to productivity growth in the 70s, 80s or early 90s. Later Solow himself claimed that this has changed. There's still some debate about this amoungst scholars though.

Back to the topic and the demographic factor; Surely the decreasing proportion of the labour force could mean that it will all work out for the best. However, to think about labour as a homogenous factor is a common but grave misstake. With increased automatization there's a risk that the jobs are to advanced for a considerable proportion of the population that lacks the skill to compete for those jobs. Instead they have to fight for a shrinking number of unskilled jobs. After all, the thread started with the claim that the 'flipping burgers'-work should be on the way out. I guess the future might not the best time to be a highschool droput.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Fez




You are funny... this isn't the 19th century.

A little too obvious a troll was it? I thought even you would bite at that one

[yavoon]

assuming we have the resources and the ability to train the workers it is short sighted to think that any production level is too high.

of course there are logistical pitfalls all along the way. as we are constantly seeing.

[:) Smiley]

This long run vs. short run talk is baloney, as when people talk of "short run" they mean "this quarter" and when they say "long run" they mean "next 5 years". No one gives a hoot about the real long run.

"In the long run we are all dead" is only true for the old boy network of economic policymakers.

That is why demographic problems never get addressed until its too late to do something about it. For example, Mainland China is still continuing with its one-child policy even though they're starting to have a huge workforce shortage and a massive retired population.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Smiley
This long run vs. short run talk is baloney, as when people talk of "short run" they mean "this quarter" and when they say "long run" they mean "next 5 years". No one gives a hoot about the real long run.

"In the long run we are all dead" is only true for the old boy network of economic policymakers.

That is why demographic problems never get addressed until its too late to do something about it. For example, Mainland China is still continuing with its one-child policy even though they're starting to have a huge workforce shortage and a massive retired population.

last I heard there were still like 1.2 billion of them. I hardly want them to kick the engine back in now.

[faded glory]

Automation is the end of capitalism. In theory things get cheaper, but as we see, greed will keep them high.

Example: Ford Focus is made in Mexico for rougly 1700 - 3000$ p/Vehicle. So why does it cost 14,000-17,000$? It could be sold and still be profitable at about half that much.

Or Music CD's. What do they run now? 18$ ? How much does it cost the label's to make orders? Shipping? Artist fee's? Maybe 2$ per CD.

So yes. Capitalism is ****ing itself over big time.

[faded glory]

Outsourcing sucks too. ****in chinese. Or should I say, ****in corporate greed/Wal Mart.