Slashdot Mirror


Walmart Is Cutting 7,000 Jobs Due To Automation (yahoo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Yahoo: The clairvoyant folks over at the World Economic Forum warned of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution" involving the rise of the machine in the workforce, and the latest company to lend credence to that claim is none other than Walmart, which is planning on cutting 7,000 jobs on account of automation. But the Walmart decision may be a bit more alarming for those in the workforce. As the Wall Street Journal reports (Warning: may be paywalled), the most concerning aspect of America's largest private employer might be that the eliminated positions are largely in the accounting and invoicing sectors of the company. These jobs are typically held by some of the longest tenured employees, who also happen to take home higher hourly wages. Now, those coveted positions are being automated. The Journal reports that beginning in 2017, much of this work will be addressed by "a central office or new money-counting 'cash recycler' machines in stores." Earlier this year, the company tested this change across some 500 locations. "We've seen many make smooth transitions during the pilot," said Deisha Barnett, a Walmart spokeswoman.

35 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. All according to plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The sooner robots replace the workforce, the more leisure time we will have to enjoy life.

    1. Re:All according to plan by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How will you pay for what you need to live without a job, exactly? Or do you think we'll be living in some idealistic world where everything, including housing, is free?

    2. Re:All according to plan by Bartles · · Score: 2

      How are the Waltons going to live in the lap of luxury if nobody has jobs or income to buy stuff from them, as you seem to think?

    3. Re:All according to plan by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd be looking at a complete paradigm shift when it comes to economies. That is to say, not communism, not capitalism, nor any other economic system of the past. Things like housing could very well become irrelevant, much as not everything you currently take for granted has always been relevant.

      For example: Why would you need to commute if there's no need for it? 200 years ago, nobody bothered; instead where they "worked" was less than an hour walk from where they lived. And since 90% of the population were farmers, there wasn't really even a concept of weekdays and weekends (Fun fact: That didn't truly begin until Henry Ford started the idea of taking Saturdays off and having an 8x5 40 hour work week to retain quality workers; a concept that many misattribute to labor unions.) Kind of like how school sessions are seasonal, work was also seasonal in those days, depending on your particular trade, and work was only done as it was necessary, rather than being done to make money as is the norm today.

      However the main thing that did (and still does) set apart the rich from the poor are material goods, which has for a long time been, and still is, a motivation for having an income. That is a constant that has always existed throughout history, and as time has gone by, and contrary to popular belief, the goalpost for "poor" keeps increasing. Kings of even 3 centuries ago could only dream of the things today's poor now have access to. Imagine for example how long it would have taken King George to travel from Edinburgh to London, and compare that to how long it takes for even a poor person to do the same today.

      But more to the point, if automation makes having material goods cheaper and cheaper, and if they eventually become free (who knows, maybe somebody will invent Star Trek style replicators?) then who needs to work? Work life would end up being like before the industrial revolution, where work is only done when it needs to be done, only now we have more nice things, but this time without the need for an income.

    4. Re:All according to plan by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      They are psychopaths, they do not care about everyone else's future just their own, in reality as far as they are concerned the entire would along with the rest of us can die when they die. They pay for the PR, they buy politicians to lie for them and they will happily kill the rest of us to get ahead, in fact many of them enjoy that more than getting ahead, the power to decide who lives and who dies is intoxicating to them, look at Hillary and Obama cheering themselves and each other along.

      It is far more accurately called psychopathic capitalism because that is the reality of it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:All according to plan by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      (Fun fact: That didn't truly begin until Henry Ford started the idea of taking Saturdays off and having an 8x5 40 hour work week to retain quality workers; a concept that many misattribute to labor unions.)

      I'm sorry, but you've got that wrong:

      In the United States, a few limited eight-hour-day laws were on the books shortly after the Civil War. One, in Illinois, was passed in 1867, followed in 1868 by a law covering certain classes of federal workers. But neither law was well-enforced, and in most sectors, working hours of 10 to 12 hours were common. So a reduction in the work week became a leading issue for the nascent labor movement.

      The issue came to a head in 1884, after the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions -- a predecessor of today’s AFL-CIO -- called for all workers to have eight-hour days by May 1, 1886. When that deadline wasn’t met, labor leaders upped the ante by calling for demonstrations. In Chicago, peaceful marches morphed into violence, with an explosion marring a rally at Haymarket Square on May 4, 1886, leaving seven police officers and four workers dead. Subsequent trials, executions and clemencies for the accused made the eight-hour week a top issue nationally and internationally.

      All of this occurred decades before Ford founded his company in 1903.

      Ford didn't implement the 40 hour workweek until 1926.

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:All according to plan by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      The army of North Korea has 1,200,000 soldiers.

      Yes, but do they carry the 80oz jar of pickles for under $5?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:All according to plan by Ziest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      guaranteed minimum income

      Never going to happen in this country. The status quo hangs on to their ideology like a junkie and his heroin. When the pitchforks come out then maybe, but I suspect the 1%, once they finish strip mining this country, will flee leaving us to rot.
       

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    8. Re:All according to plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's the alternative? What should be done when every available job requires such a high level of exceptional ability that only a couple of percent of the population have it? That is, when the only people who can outperform automated systems are those who are exceptionally intelligent, very talented as entertainers or have remarkable athletic capability. And the first category will keep shrinking when automation becomes more and more capable and the latter two cannot expect any remuneration either for what they do from the masses since the unemployed masses earn nothing. Really, what's your solution? To let nature run its course and wait and see whether the desperate masses manage to bring down the system or lose the battle against automated systems that are in place to keep the peace when people riot? If such automated systems do not have the authority to, if necessary, kill people or incarcerate them, those systems will lose but if they do, the masses will lose.

      Oh, and to which category do you think you belong? Those capable enough or those who become redundant? And I'd of course also like to know what you will do, if it turns out that you belong to the latter? Accept your fate?

    9. Re:All according to plan by RichPowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This benefits all shareholders, of which the Waltons are the largest.

      Do you own index or mutual funds in a 401(k) account to fund your retirement? If yes, the "blood" is on your hands, too. You proportionally benefit as much as the Waltons when jobs are cut and money is freed up for other purposes, including returning it to the people who own the enterprise.

      Anyone here a California public employee counting on a pension? How do you think CalPERS is going to achieve those rosy 7% returns to fund the payments to future retirees? Dividends, share repurchases, and growth from allocating retained earnings -- the shareholders own this money, after all -- in value-additive projects. Cutting the fat is one way of freeing up additional free cash for these purposes.

      I think it's interesting how millions of Americans are shareholders who benefit from these moves as much as the fat cats.

    10. Re:All according to plan by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In some ways the goalposts have moved but not in a simple linear progression. Because of technology, the poor can have cheap TVs and phones. But in trade, they now cannot afford a place to call home. If they tried the popular solution from the middle ages of pick out an un-occupied spot and build a house, the city would come arrest them and bulldoze the place. They can no-longer make a job for themselves by planting on the commons and selling whatever surplus they grow (In many places, you are not even permitted to plant crops on the land you own).

      An income is no longer optional, but the ability to have an income is not guaranteed.

      As has always been the case, the nobility doesn't trouble itself with these things.

    11. Re: All according to plan by saloomy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason your doom and gloom is wrong is specifically that the economy doesn't shrink. It grows. Yes, automation reduces positions in the economy for work by people, but every person not working is his or her salary in terms of cost not invited to produce goods and services. So the price falls, so the affordability rises. The rising affordability means that everyone will have more. The reason the economy rises is that the AVERAGE person has more ability to consume than prior. And no, not just the 1%, the ordinary individual. It makes no sense in being able to make a million cars automatically if only 500 people can afford them. The more for less economy only works if more people can have more stuff for less. High unemployment is not a natural state, people will always find work, and be able to afford more with it. The 1% will make sure that people have propensity to consume. It's the natural order, and they have to have people buying their shit or they will no longer be in the 1%. Maybe most individuals will eventually own stock in the infradtructure.

    12. Re:All according to plan by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 4, Funny

      but I suspect the 1%, once they finish strip mining this country, will flee leaving us to rot.

      So what you're saying is when the revolution comes invest in anti-aircraft missiles?

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    13. Re: All according to plan by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually for almost 80% of the population, you are wrong.

      Ability to afford a new car, a new house, a college education, high quality clothing, high quality food has been falling since 1980.

      The top 20% are doing fine.

      Having a smart phone doesn't make up for eating poorly (lotsa cheap carbs- no nutrients), being unable to get decent housing ($160,000 even 25 miles from town try buying that on $35k a year after taxes), or decent clothing (cheap knits that shred in a few years-- if that long).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:All according to plan by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      No one starves to death in Scandinavia, unless they deliberately starve themselves. And even then, they'll probably be put in a psychiatric ward and force-fed or drip-fed.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    15. Re:All according to plan by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Read the short story "Manna" (free book). In the story, most countries evolve into a somewhat dystopian jobless society. People get a minimum income, most of that being provided in kind: government housing with free TV and a cafeteria serving palatable food. But no hopes of ever doing better, no opportunities for other activities of leisure, and after a while you can imagine those benefits will get cut: less meal choices, singles will now have to share their room. And you are not allowed to leave the compound anymore either.

      It all comes down to the question Marx posed: who owns the means of production? Who owns the robots? That may well gravitate to private owners, while governments increasingly struggle to balance their budget and provide for a growing number of unemployed, while income from natural resources is running out fast. And then what? You'd kind of hope the megacorps will go under with us since they'd have no one left to sell to. But even if we end up owning the robots collectively, you're still likely to end up with a centrally planned, communist society, nominally designed for efficiency rather than comfort, like the world in "This Perfect Day"

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    16. Re: All according to plan by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The reason the economy rises is that the AVERAGE person has more ability to consume than prior."

      You know that thingie called statistics. If I have one million in the bank and the other nine have zero, we all AVERAGE 100K in the bank. Still no good for those other nine.

      "people will always find work"

      What's that? the fifth law of thermodinamics, or something?

      No, man, sorry: for most of History, people was absolutely unable to find work and it was more that a short elite forced them into work. What if that short elite has no work for them anymore?

      "The 1% will make sure that people have propensity to consume. It's the natural order"

      Again, have you ever opened a History book? Was a consumist society the "natural order" of ancient Egipt, or Greece, or Rome, or Middle Ages, or pre-revolution Europe? Was it the "natural order" along imperial Chine, traditional Japan, most Africa history or precolombine America?

      Looking at the History book, it seems much more that your "natural order", if any, is for an elite taking benefit of most of the goodies squeezed out of a mass of people let just above the starving level. What if that elite manages not to need that mass of people to squeeze their goodies anymore?

    17. Re: All according to plan by finlan · · Score: 2

      Why eat rats when you can eat a banker?

    18. Re:All according to plan by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      When they talk about people "having hunger" the standard is exactly that - being involuntarily hungry at least once that year.

      Note that the standard in the USA for "hunger" is "missed a meal". By that definition, I have been suffering from hunger every year of my life, since I manage to be busy enough with something to miss a meal at least once a year....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re: All according to plan by Traxton · · Score: 2

      Not where I live (Sweden). Here, a meal at McDonald's is 70 SEK. A nutritious meal of chicken fillet, rice and broccoli cooked at home is 20-30 SEK. No dollar menu available anywhere.

  2. shades of The Twilight Zone by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are many bromides applicable here ... too much of a good thing, tiger by the tail, as you sow so shall you reap. The point is that too often Man becomes clever instead of becoming wise, he becomes inventive and not thoughtful, and sometimes, as in the case of Mr. Whipple, he can create himself right out of existence. As in tonight's tale of oddness and obsolescence in the Twilight Zone.

    closing narration, The Brain Center at Whipple's

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  3. Not really by eclectro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everything is not rosy with Walmart's penchant to do away with workers. One thing is an exploding crime problem at their stores because there is not enough personnel around. Who wants to go shopping in a crime zone? That and a popular local Walmart has an extremely hard time keeping the store shelves stocked. It's wonderful to have low prices, but I usually am wasting my time going there only to see empty shelves.

    So disposing of workers only goes so far. I simply do not believe that our android workers will arrive in the near future to mitigate these problems created by lack of workers.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Not really by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

      Everything is not rosy with Walmart's penchant to do away with workers. One thing is an exploding crime problem at their stores because there is not enough personnel around. Who wants to go shopping in a crime zone? That and a popular local Walmart has an extremely hard time keeping the store shelves stocked. It's wonderful to have low prices, but I usually am wasting my time going there only to see empty shelves.

      So disposing of workers only goes so far. I simply do not believe that our android workers will arrive in the near future to mitigate these problems created by lack of workers.

      Amen! I stopped at a Walmart on the way home from a family reunion a few years ago in an area I assumed should be safe. A friend of mine had warned me about that location since it was near his home, but I thought he was joking. I was afraid I wouldn't make it back to my car. I had my kids lock themselves in the car while I put away the groceries. I never returned there again.

      The Bloomberg article is eye-opening. The Walmart closest to me is a shithole. The shelves are frequently empty and the customers do not look like "natives." I live in a fairly affluent area and I always wondered why the Walmart three miles down the road is so run down, especially after the huge expansion a couple years ago. It is in a very congested retail area with a large mall and NONE of the other stores in the area look anything like it. It looks like the Walmart crime/demographics database is the secret reason why there are so few employees running the place. You hardly ever see more than a handful of employees. I usually drive much farther and go to a better stocked, cleaner and safer Walmart in a blue collar area when I need staple groceries.

      I remember when Walmart first opened in our region back in 1991 and ran Kmart and a couple grocery chains out. Their stores were clean and you could never find an empty shelf. When they ran out of an item, the tags were removed and something else was put in its place until the stock truck arrived. Now it's a disaster area. If it weren't for canned and dry goods groceries, water softener salt and soaps, I'd abandon them completely.

    2. Re:Not really by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of the story of iRobot (or some other robot company). They wanted to make an industrial floor cleaning robot, but cleaning floors involves 3 passes (pouring wax, buffing, and something else). Not wanting to build 3 robots, they came up with one that did all 3 operations in one pass. When they showed off the robot at a trade show, people were much impressed. And then asked "could you take out that computer, and mount a handle so the janitor can push the machine around?". Turns out building supervisors didn't want robots, they wanted a janitor to clean and at the same time keep an eye on the place and make small repairs.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. 100% Automation coming soon. by frnic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And there is no economic model to tell us how that is going to work. But, not far in the future - many of us will see it, if we don't kill ourselves off first, all manual labor will be automated. And soon after that there will be no labor required to produce any products - production and distribution will be totally automated. At that point labor will have no value and our world economy will cease to exist.

    1. Re:100% Automation coming soon. by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      100% Automation coming soon. And there is no economic model to tell us how that is going to work.

      It won't be 100% automation, it will be 99% automation, and we have a historical example in agriculture. It used to be that nearly everyone had to be a farmer, producing their own food to survive. Now a tiny fraction of the population can run the machinery to produce ample food for everyone.

      So manufacturing and distribution is heading this way too? Great! I'm tired of paying $1000 for a refrigerator... When they get down to $10, you can tell me how horrible near-complete automation is for our economy. I've seen this happening in my own lifetime... The most basic power tools cost several weeks of salary a few decades ago. Now you can buy a complete drill for about 1-hour of minimum wage salary. Clothing used to be an investment, too, and sewing machines were everywhere so rips could be fixed. Now you just throw out anything with any imperfections.

      When this model transfers over to home construction, medicine, and other skilled-labor-intensive industries, we'll be in good shape. Your biggest monthly costs getting driven down to 1% the price will let even the poorest live comfortably. And when you don't have to pack into a few big cities to get a high-paying job to survive, the expensive cities will slowly dissipate. People will disperse to cheaper areas and do some trivial little jobs that never-the-less easily pays for all their living expenses.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  5. Overblown by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    #1 Walmart employs around 2 million people worldwide. This does not even move the needle. #2 This has been happening for years. First it was the adding machine, then the electronic calculator, then the big computers, then the smaller ones. This should not come as a shock to anyone.

  6. Re:Wage pressure by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 2

    Hopefully you are arguing for a guaranteed income in that case. Because of course, someone needs to buy the goods that walmart resells, or "middlemans".

    --
    -
  7. Re:Wage pressure by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Automation is inevitable as the capital cost falls. But increasing the cost of human labor accelerates the process significantly. Creative destruction is a good thing, but it does hurt individuals temporarily who will need to retrain and adjust. So the pace is no small thing, and accelerating the transformation is not benign.

    That's the usual march of progress, as long as people find new jobs that's fine. If everyone were fit for higher education as doctors, engineers, lawyers and so on we'd not mourn the loss of taxi drivers and burger flippers. Not everyone is looking to solve hard, creative problems at work. Me, I'd probably get bored otherwise but lots and lots of people just want to be trained in a task, do that task and collect their paycheck. Those kinds of "doer" jobs are the prime targets for automation and disappearing across the board.

    Every time they list a position with hardly any education or experience necessary, there's a massive number of applicants and it ends up a game of musical chairs where most people don't get the job. I know a few people on disability benefit, I'd say for a century ago they'd be deemed "simpletons" and had some basic menial labor. A few hundred years ago most people were illiterate but they still had jobs, today I'd say an illiterate person is mostly unemployable so it's already happened a bit. But now it might start eating into a significant fraction of the population.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. Automation should be illegal by pablo_max · · Score: 2

    I know, I know... I am a communist, socialist and all the rest of it, but it makes sense.
    There are 1 basic rule of capitalism. Survival of the fittest.
    It turns out, however, that survival of the fittest is not always the best approach when you want to hold a society together. That is why we have things like anti monopoly rules. The "end game" for capitalism is to eliminate all competition so that in the end, there is only one.
    This of course is massively short sighted, given that most of the population will won't have jobs and then cannot afford to buy your stuff. Especially since most so many people in the US firmly believe that if you lose your job, you should be homeless and starve to death if you cannot find a new job in time. Being good the Christians that they are.
    That is same with automation, It should not be allowed. Can low level jobs be replaced with robots? Of course they can. But what the fuck are the people going to do for work?
    Is everyone going to be a manager?
    Is everyone going to start their own business?
    No, of course not. Instead, those people will go hungry. They will go without insurance. Their kids will not have an education.
    This is bad for everyone.
    Of course, we all know that we are at a point where most food items and "stuff" can be made nearly with complete automation. We can produce enough for every single person to eat and have a place to live and clothes on their back.
    But... We wont. Because those people are lazy, and should die. Right?
    Eventually, that will happen. Or at least I hope. But until that time, those people "need" jobs.
    You do not "need" a cheaper iphone. You only "want" cheaper stuff.
    Next time you shop at a discount store, ask yourself.. why is this item so much cheaper than the local mom and pop shop? What is this really costing me?

  9. So much for higher education... by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, in the US, we automate agriculture enough to get the workforce down to 2% of the population. Then we automate enough of the manufacturing sector to reduce it to 8% of the population, not including the millions of offahored factory jobs. Then we tell everyone they have to go to college and get at least a 4 year degree to have any hope of a stable future. The vast majority of people at non-top tier universities are doing the minimum required to get a degree, majoring in business or psychology or communications. In the past, all of those people were absorbed into random entry-level positions doing the kind of work Walmart is now automating. It's a ritual - party through 4 years, show up at the campus career center during your senior year, do a few interviews and pick Random Large Employer to work for as a Random Paper Processing Position. What exactly are people proposing that we do with these "C students," who number in the millions and contribute to society through taxes, buying stuff and raising little C students?
    - Most of them don't have the aptitude for tech careers (many of which are being automated as well...)
    - Most of them can't be trained in a skilled trade without asking them to go back through another 4 years of apprenticeship
    - Almost none can become doctors, lawyers, etc. because the competition is so keen to get in to medical/law school
    - They can't be investment bankers or management consultants, because those professions only recruit from the Ivy League

    I know it's no one's dream to process paperwork, but it has traditionally been one of the most stable ways for middle-skilled people to earn a living and have a career. Students starting out as a Associate Paper Processor have the opportunity to become a Senior Paper Processor, then a Paper Processor Supervisor, Manager of Paper Processing, Director of Document Services, and so on. For everyone in corporate IT, think of all the paper processors we directly support, working away in their cubicles. Most are incapable of doing any more than a defined procedure on an input stack of work. If you suddenly say all these people are unemployed, what do you propose replacing their jobs with? When that good salary goes away, the government doesn't get its payroll tax, the unemployed person chooses not to buy a house and therefore doesn't pay property taxes into the system, they choose not to procreate and reduce the birth rate to an unsustainable level. And, they don't buy anything, meaning businesses can't sell the products they make.

    I'm not saying we become Luddites and stop the automation, but we as a whole need to think about what we're going to do with a very large disaffected population. Look how much support Trump has among factory workers who are still unemployed or underemployed even though everyone's being told the economy is in OK shape. I'm one of those people who feels that full employment above all else should be the goal, even if we do make-work for some of it. You can't have millions of people sitting around with nothing to do and no purpose -- it will lead to massive crime over the long run as people get bored and tired of being broke.

  10. Jesus people by pablo_max · · Score: 2

    Ironically, the ones who scream the loudest against helping the "unwashed masses" are the Jesus people. Conservative Christians seem fundamentally not capable of allowing someone else a basic standard of life. And yes, that makes them bad people.

  11. Manna is finally coming by twms2h · · Score: 2

    http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

    Manna's job was to manage the store, and it did this in a most interesting way. Think about a normal fast food restaurant. A group of employees worked at the store, typically 50 people in a normal restaurant, and they rotated in and out on a weekly schedule. The people did everything from making the burgers to taking the orders to cleaning the tables and taking out the trash. All of these employees reported to the store manager and a couple of assistant managers. The managers hired the employees, scheduled them and told them what to do each day. This was a completely normal arrangement. In the early twenty-first century, there were millions of businesses that operated in this way.

    But the fast food industry had a problem, and Burger-G was no different. The problem was the quality of the fast food experience. Some restaurants were run perfectly. They had courteous and thoughtful crew members, clean restrooms, great customer service and high accuracy on the orders. Other restaurants were chaotic and uncomfortable to customers. Since one bad experience could turn a customer off to an entire chain of restaurants, these poorly-managed stores were the Achilles heel of any chain.

    To solve the problem, Burger-G contracted with a software consultant and commissioned a piece of software. The goal of the software was to replace the managers and tell the employees what to do in a more controllable way. Manna version 1.0 was born. ...

    The first part is a rather depression dystopia. The second part is pure utopia.

  12. In other words, 0.3% of Walmart employees by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    Walmart, and every other major company everywhere, has been replacing employees with technology at this rate--or more--for years.

  13. $10 refrigerator? Great! Can I have $10 please? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    As the the other reply to your post said, how are people going to get *any* money if their labor can't be sold?

    Face it, the more jobs get automated, the less labor can be sold for. And when automation gets cheaper in terms of resources than maintaining a person to do the same thing, then the people who own capital will do away with labor entirely.

    Then, people who own "enough" will be fine, and the people who don't own will not be able to labor to make money.

    "But there will always be new jobs" you say? That's been true in the past, but look at what has happened to the earnings of labor in the USA as a fraction of corporate earnings. It has dropped 50% in inflation-adjusted dollars.

    And a weak labor market brings down the value of *all* labor. People have been climbing up the skills ladder like crazy in the USA. More college graduates than ever before. Yet the wages are not higher. Why? Supply and demand. More supply of labor means lower wages for labor. More people fighting over the same jobs.

    Even the poorest won't live comfortably when they can't get *any* money. And the USA has demonstrated a deep hostility to providing a decent safety net. People are reverting to subsistence farming in Detroit.