I keep telling my people and those who will listen, first MMT is the only true way to look at economics. Anything other than that and we are spinning our wheels and we will only have the so called UniCorns who can pay six figures. On that note Keynes is quoted as saying back in the 1930,s that by the time his grandchildren reached the year 2000 they would only be working 15 hours a week, and spending more time on recreation. He was correct on the New Deal, like it or not convservatives. The only thing from proving him right on the 15 hours is a Mind Shift in how we do work. You layout one portion of that in manufacturing, which I agree with. But you can't make people want to work and do a stellar job. But is that important in an automated factory. Yes, even running robots, which we do still requires a talented person with a good work ethic. That is unchangable. Unfortunately a bit of what I hear from you in your postion is the same thing we heard during the Internet Bubble. All the young go getters, were telling the tried and true investors "we live in a new world" to which they old guys said, you can't argue against the math! Well we know how that works. It wil be be a mind shift of monumental degrees to reach where these Unicorns have gotten. There are alwasy these guys in truth. It takes years to get new "status Quo" which is what you are championing here. I am with you but as a person who has lived a bit longer and studied history as part of my eduation, managing expetations and the wild card, PEOPLE with free minds and all of us diseased by Pragnostic Myopia it will be a never endign battle, but one worth the struggle.
I'll leave MMT alone. Not my field and I'd just be performing a view I don't have.
On Keynes, I think he was right about the productivity and wrong about what we'd do with it. The gains showed up as more output rather than fewer hours (not an accident, that's what the people financing the machines wanted).
Your internet bubble point is the one I want to answer properly, because it's fair and I've heard it aimed at better arguments than mine. Here's the difference I'd claim: revenue per employee isn't a new-world metric. Gardner has been benchmarking it in machine shops for years. Top shops around $260k, average around $165k, and that gap was sitting there before anyone said AI out loud. I'm not telling you the rules changed. I'm saying an old measurement got ignored because headcount was easier to count.
And you're right that I can't make anyone want to work, and I don't think that's fixable. My claim is narrower than it probably read: in a shop running real automation, one person with a good work ethic shows up in the output differently than they did in 1995, and counting bodies hides them. That's closer to your point than against it.
But I think that leaves a lot behind. There's more to life than tech.
I'm not judging, at least not presuming that my judgment trumps all others.
Still, in the systems discussed here, the operator is just another part of the machinery.
I don't know haw many people who read this have seen the silent movie Metropolis. As a silent movie, it's archaic. As a commentary on our time, it's highly relevant.
I've been retired for over a decade. But I had a sub-contracting business for forty years. I wrestled with competing with my peers, and doing challenging work that made my day interesting. Not a great business model, but satisfying.
I keep telling my people and those who will listen, first MMT is the only true way to look at economics. Anything other than that and we are spinning our wheels and we will only have the so called UniCorns who can pay six figures. On that note Keynes is quoted as saying back in the 1930,s that by the time his grandchildren reached the year 2000 they would only be working 15 hours a week, and spending more time on recreation. He was correct on the New Deal, like it or not convservatives. The only thing from proving him right on the 15 hours is a Mind Shift in how we do work. You layout one portion of that in manufacturing, which I agree with. But you can't make people want to work and do a stellar job. But is that important in an automated factory. Yes, even running robots, which we do still requires a talented person with a good work ethic. That is unchangable. Unfortunately a bit of what I hear from you in your postion is the same thing we heard during the Internet Bubble. All the young go getters, were telling the tried and true investors "we live in a new world" to which they old guys said, you can't argue against the math! Well we know how that works. It wil be be a mind shift of monumental degrees to reach where these Unicorns have gotten. There are alwasy these guys in truth. It takes years to get new "status Quo" which is what you are championing here. I am with you but as a person who has lived a bit longer and studied history as part of my eduation, managing expetations and the wild card, PEOPLE with free minds and all of us diseased by Pragnostic Myopia it will be a never endign battle, but one worth the struggle.
Todd, thanks for taking the time on this one.
I'll leave MMT alone. Not my field and I'd just be performing a view I don't have.
On Keynes, I think he was right about the productivity and wrong about what we'd do with it. The gains showed up as more output rather than fewer hours (not an accident, that's what the people financing the machines wanted).
Your internet bubble point is the one I want to answer properly, because it's fair and I've heard it aimed at better arguments than mine. Here's the difference I'd claim: revenue per employee isn't a new-world metric. Gardner has been benchmarking it in machine shops for years. Top shops around $260k, average around $165k, and that gap was sitting there before anyone said AI out loud. I'm not telling you the rules changed. I'm saying an old measurement got ignored because headcount was easier to count.
And you're right that I can't make anyone want to work, and I don't think that's fixable. My claim is narrower than it probably read: in a shop running real automation, one person with a good work ethic shows up in the output differently than they did in 1995, and counting bodies hides them. That's closer to your point than against it.
Let's hear it for efficiency and the bottom line.
But I think that leaves a lot behind. There's more to life than tech.
I'm not judging, at least not presuming that my judgment trumps all others.
Still, in the systems discussed here, the operator is just another part of the machinery.
I don't know haw many people who read this have seen the silent movie Metropolis. As a silent movie, it's archaic. As a commentary on our time, it's highly relevant.
More to life than tech: agreed, fully. That's exactly why the wage has to clear first.
But at the end of the day, everyone has a choice. You can choose to be a part of the thing or lead the thing.
Third choice: Avoid the thing.
I've been retired for over a decade. But I had a sub-contracting business for forty years. I wrestled with competing with my peers, and doing challenging work that made my day interesting. Not a great business model, but satisfying.
@Const; what do I tell @Trump and @rapidresponse47 and Reshoring Initiative the policy should be, Sir? Yes, a real question.
A manufacturing facility shouldn’t have any office workers.
Or an HR department staffed with sub-90-IQ ghouls.
🤔.