• The supporting arguments for Yes Votes are WEAK

    Even a machine can break down and we still need skilled men and women to fix them- machines create jobs because people need to design them. Poor, poor arguments.

    Yes of course we do. But we need LESS. If we didn't need less it wouldn't be economical and companies wouldn't do it. Decisions on whether to buy these machines come down to how much the machines come down to whether or not they save money over the life of the asset (machine). To do this they factor in the cost of the machine (the designers salaries and raw materials involved) + the maintenance costs (Engineers salaries and parts) vs the savings (predominantly labour + some wastage savings-less energy costs).

    Therefore they would only make the decision to buy if they end up paying less on salaries to the designers/maintenance guys than they save on. Yes the skilled labour increases, somewhat offsetting the loss of unskilled labour. But not entirely therefore it does cause some loss of jobs.

    AND if you factor in that skilled workers get paid more than unskilled workers then even if the money spent on salaries as a total between lost and gained was equal there would still be less jobs as the total would be divided between less people.

    Economic Argument of Increasing GDP is the only real argument but in reality look at growth in the developed countries. Its practically nil. Inflation is also "practically nil" but this is rubbish in reality. It's only that low because of plummeting oil prices and because when a company reduces the size of its product rather than putting prices up they don't reflect this properly in inflation figures.

  • May be not now,

    But in the future many organization would choose to buy automation machine that can work 24 hours a day rather than to hired person who can work only 8 hours a day with extra pay in theeir overtime.. Automation would be helpful if it is use to save a lot of people not for the benefits of only one person.

  • Robots are great for effeminacy and reducing cost. But are bad for the economy.

    If a factory replaces just 50% of it's work force with robots, local businesses that are dependent on these newly unemployed workers will lose about 50% of their revenue. Local businesses will be forced to cut there labor in order to stay in business. Some small local businesses will close shop altogether. This creates a cycle that has spread across our nation. In 2007, lots of people lot their jobs. In 2008, the number of people who lost their jobs and could not make the payments on their homes was so frequent that it contributed to the financial crisis later that year.

  • The automation of factories does decrease the demand for line level blue collar jobs.

    Even though automation decreases the demand for blue collar jobs, it does create more white collar jobs. Overall the implementaition of automation in factory line work, ultimately it helps to increase the GDP. By increasing the GDP and working to create a fair and balanced progressive tax and welfare system, I believe that even thought automation has a negative effect on the number of jobs available, it will result in a higher standard quality of life for the lowest income level brackets of America.

  • No, automation is not to blame for unemployment.

    Even a machine can break down, and we need skilled men or women to fix them. We still need a human life to work in restaurants, fast food joints, retail. Not everything can be automated. If anything, progress should lower the unemployment and push people to go to college to get a better education.

  • It may be adding more!

    Not everything can be automated. We need people to design these machines, to build them, and to operate them. A machine, to replace one task, would have at least a 30 man project team behind it. It may be eliminating positions at the labor level, but it is promoting innovation and growth in technology.

  • Automation exchanges unskilled labor for a demand in skilled labor

    Automation requires more skilled labor than the number of unskilled labor jobs that it eliminates.[1] Furthermore, automation makes it more economically feasible to produce new products. For example, if present-day computer systems had to be assembled by hand, they'd cost thousands of dollars more. Automation makes the process cheaper for the end user not because there are fewer human workers (that may be a small factor), but because the products can be mass produced (more supply = lower price). Th statement is better expressed as "Automation reallocates workers in the industry" rather than removing them from the industry entirely.


  • no, lazy stupid people are..

    there are jobs if you want them

    these are the facts

    in fact automation has probably created jobs.

    someone has to design the robots and program them and maintain them.

    an argument for de-skilling humans could be made

    but not for unemployment.

    i see it in young school children, this desire to do nothing and be nothing.

    they think the world owes them something

    get rid of benefits, then see how quickly unemployment drops

  • No, I do not believe automation is to blame for unemployment

    Automation is not to blame for unemployment. Rich corporations who are outsourcing their work to 3rd world world countries who pay a pittance to their employees. I feel it is not patriotic to take jobs out of the country, to find loopholes to not pay taxes and make money hand over fist. It is time for rich corporations and the people who run them to pay their fair share.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.