The Instigator
falloutgirl5005
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
supremecourt101
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Automotive companies in Michigan should not replace low skill laborers with automation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

falloutgirl5005

Pro

Automotive companies in Michigan should not replace low skill laborers with automation. Michigan currently has the highest unemployment rate in the United Sates of 7.5%. By replace low skill laborers with automation, we will only depress Michigan's economy further. Automotive companies in Michigan currently face a multitude of problems, many of them in the area of finance. One may believe the answer to the problems is to replace the blue-collar workers with automation. The end result of this action is merely more unemployment, poverty and possible crime.
supremecourt101

Con

Although I understand your point, let's think about this. Okay, so replacing the workers would leave many unemployed. But it would make American cars cheaper. Right now the American automotive business is failing. But if American cars could be significantly cheaper than forign cars, then the economy would thrive. And when an economy thrives what happens? Unemployment goes down. So, althught some people in Michigan would lose their jobs, the rest of the nation would see a decrease in the unemployment rate.
Debate Round No. 1
falloutgirl5005

Pro

Your information is inconclusive. If the low skill laborers are laid off and automation takes effect in these factories, the prices of cars will increase. The initial investment to provide automation in Michigan's automotive factories will cost more than or the same as the workers wages. With the automotive market value decreasing, purchasing equipment to put automation into effect would be financial suicide for an automotive company in Michigan at this point in time.
supremecourt101

Con

So you are saying that if these machines are installed, then the companies will all go bankrupt. Uhh... then why would they be considering it. These companies have brilliant economists who have thought this out a bunch. Also, althought these workers are "lowskill" they still get payed a high amount for lowskilled labor. Automotive industry workers have one of the best unions in the world, and they have managed to get wages drastically increased. I believe that it would make cars much cheaper if they were made by machines.

I also would like to point out that, if more Americans are able to afford cars, then more will be able to drive to their jobs. This would give many people who previously couldn't get to a job the ability to have a descent job, whcih would also decrease unemployment and would make the economy thrive.

PS, thanks for the quick rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
falloutgirl5005

Pro

I'm not saying the companies will go bankrupt I stating that the initial investment is a bit more of a financial stretch than they can handel at the moment. Making the cars with machinery would not make them cheaper. The mechanics and other employees hired to take care of machine maintenance would end up costing more than the current system. In MIchigan's economy, there is no more room for trial and error. Automation is a risk that cannot afford to be taken. With Michigan's automotive industry based economy in such a fragile state, this would not be the most effective idea.
supremecourt101

Con

Again I would liek to reiterate that the economists that these companies have working for them will know when it is the right time to act and replace the workers. They will be able to insure long-term success with these machines. They also will calculate the annual costs of repairs, and thye will not install them until the repair cost + the instalation costs are lower than what they pay the HIGHLY PAYED EMPLOYES (which you failed to address in your rebuttal). These extra profits would then be transfered into lower prices. Then people will buy car, which will cause the economy to thrive, which ALWAYS causes unemployment to go DOWN.

I have enjoyed this debate very well and await the results. Thank You :-)
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
If workers are replaced with automated workers, that means cars become cheaper and either 1) the savings are passed on to customers, who since they are not paying as much for cars buy more of other things, which increases prices, which increases profits, until other firms enter the market which then brings prices down. These new firms replace the jobs that were lost and we are able to get more goods out of less money.

Besides, wouldn't there then be jobs in manufacturing and maintenance of these robots?
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
supremecourt101 wins for pointing out the very obvious: 1) Companies would only replace workers with automation if doing so would enhance profitability; and 2) If paying the workers instead of machines is not profitable, then the companies will go out of business and everyone will lose their job.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
falloutgirl5005supremecourt101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by falloutgirl5005 9 years ago
falloutgirl5005
falloutgirl5005supremecourt101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by smackattack 9 years ago
smackattack
falloutgirl5005supremecourt101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
falloutgirl5005supremecourt101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
falloutgirl5005supremecourt101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by nrw 9 years ago
nrw
falloutgirl5005supremecourt101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by supremecourt101 9 years ago
supremecourt101
falloutgirl5005supremecourt101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03