DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Automation

Even though none of his sentences are true, there is one that is close enough to having a point that it needs to be corrected.



Should be:
There are so many factors in this new Post Nov. 23rd. stolen election, and therefore dismissal of the will of the people , by the olgarch's, big business media, and whomever else is actually in charge's economy, affecting what people are willing and unwilling to do... that economists can't figure some such...

Fixed.

I just wanted to address these 2 points by themselves because (IMO) they're more incorrect than correct. Both are almost entirely based on opinion, and depending on the industry/company they could be anywhere from partially true to completely untrue.

The drive towards automation is largely based on speed and 'efficiency'. If you have a simple task, a machine will do it faster and with less mistakes than a human. Mistakes or failures pretty much always result in higher costs (time and materials to remake a burger all the way to investigating why a medical implant failed), so reducing those mistakes as much as possible makes good business sense.

Stop making sense. It doesn't sell well.

Absolutely.

The jobs I'm talking about are manufacturing jobs for the most part.

You know, jobs where people operate machinery. If you can't find people to operate the machinery, businesses are looking at spending million upon millions to use "automated" machines to build the product.

yes, you get speed and efficiency. You also have a HUGE capital outlay to begin with. And then the routine maintenance as well.

You omit the vacation, 401k expenses, and others.

I could list 30-40 companies in just a 4 county area in n.w. Ohio that are actively seeking employees and simply can't find them.

I only speak of what I KNOW, unlike the person that posted below your response to me. (and by the way, your response was reasonable. Thanks.)

I know CEO's, CFO's of large businesses, and I know the owner of 8 McDonald franchises, as well as small businesses - none can find people that show up to work, drug free, and do so for 40 hours a week. (enough people, that is)

You say my statements are more incorrect than correct, in your opinion. I say they are more correct than incorrect, in my opinion, as well as the opinion of many, many others.

HR managers are another source I use for my 'opinion'.

I should also add, unlike a few people on here that run willy nilly to every thread to post their expertise on things they know not much about - if anything - I speak from experience of others that RUN the businesses, that can't find the help, that then are faced with HUGE expenditures to automate.

I could speak from personal experience as well.

True.


It's also true that over time it is cheaper then hiring employees.

The actual "wage" is only a part of the cost of having employees.

Invest in machinery, that is an expense a company can write off in depreciation.

Just go to WalMart. You find 1 person monitoring 8-10 self checks that move prettty wellv 2 registers open with cashiers with long lines.

The opinion thing (we all have them) goes without saying.... I appreciate your response. :-p

Also, what I mentioned is HIGHLY industry-dependent (more to your point than mine, tbh).

If they could've automated burger-flipping right now such that it made good financial sense... they absolutely would have.

Machinists (good ones) are harder to come by than ever right now... but they still haven't been able to completely phase them out. If anything, as machining operations involve more computers, experienced machinists become even MORE important, not less.

I can only speak for our company, we get a lot of applicants, but most show up for a few days and realize you actually have to work, and it's physical work, and they don't show up anymore, about 40% fill and app, take the drug test form and then never take the test and return.

We have hired 26 people so far this year, everywhere from office staff to loaders to drivers.

In my area employers absolutely can not find workers for jobs paying well over 15/hr. Amazon, UPS and even the post office are screaming for workers. There was an ad on tv for a restaraunt offering 17/hr for a line cook and dishwashers. The guy that installed our AC unit (company owner) said he can't talk former good employees into comimg back after being laid off....they said they'll call when the unemployment stimulus runs out. That's why he was out doing installations. That's just here in my area, but I'm pretty sure it's not an anomaly.

***Within 5 minutes of posting this, the local morning news had a segment on the difficulties employers are having filling good paying jobs. ***

Since you decided to target my post which was in no way aimed at you, though not surprising. You forgot to add, "In my neighborhood" to the above post.

I don't really consider a 4 county area (each county in the roughly 350-400 sq. mile range) as "my neighborhood".

And, we've heard from people in Lucas county, as well as somewhere in Florida. And I will add in Elkhart county in Indiana as well - my brother and his 30 employee business.

The one company I spoke of that has 650 employees? Does work all over Ohio, Michigan, Indiana - and many jobs in Kentucky, as well as in other states. Now, aside from Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, the work is done under a different name, and I have no idea the number of employees.

I base my opinions on FACTS from the people that are LIVING it. Not some warped/biased media that spoon feeds me.

Spoke with a lady today - she's employed full time, M-F, in an apartment complex. She works another job called a 'weekend warrior' job. Sat and Sunday. Saturdays pay $21 an hour, and Sundays pay $27 an hour. She's never worked less than 10 hours a day. Before taxes, she's looking at $500 a week.

Not too shabby, really.

No that's not shabby at all. Of course then there's the aspect of living to work seven days a week. There have been times in my life where I've done that myself but if I had it all to do over again I probably wouldn't have.

There are jobs going unfilled. A lot of them. So I'm not trying to totally discount your point.

But the reasons vary and there's not some one size fits all answer for that.

Let me give you a counterpoint. Good paying jobs are moving to Tennessee in droves. We have two years of free community college here. What businesses are finding is that we have a ready and educated work force for technical, well paying jobs. There are low paying jobs which people are having trouble filling the positions here but otherwise businesses are finding all the qualified employees they desire.

You see, what a waiter or server makes in Nashville makes it very hard to make a living. Homes that were once reasonably priced have gone up in value by leaps and bounds. As such rents have skyrocketed here. Rent makes it restrictive to live here on low wages. And with the opportunities of better jobs flooding the state, many are moving into more lucrative jobs.

I have no idea of the unemployment rate in the areas you speak of but in many cases that also plays a factor. Like I said, the situation differs from place to place and the unemployment rate, education of your citizens and other factors play a role in that.

Last I heard, in my 'neighborhood' unemployment was 4.7%

That was this morning - 1 county was 5%.

One need not live to work 7 days a week. For those that do, most are people like the lady I spoke about: Extra money, for things they want, but didn't have the money for.

Heck, for 480 a weekend, I'd consider it - but I work at MY job most saturdays, and Sunday - get this, I go to church, and during the football season, I watch the Browns.

My choice, just as it's her choice.

Just as many factories here offer over time daily, and yes, 7 days a week if the employee chooses to do so.

If one of those picker robots gets in my way at Krogers Ima going trash the motha.

Yes it was my choice when I decided to work seven days a week too. Which is exactly what I spoke about. Never did I say others didn't have a choice so I have no idea where that outburst came from.

If you called my post an 'outburst'....wow.

If the word tangent makes you feel any better we can go with that.

I spoke facts. You had to chime in on something irrelevant in an effort to make yourself relevant.

Bottom line, jobs ARE out there for those that desire to work and improve themselves and their situations.

Nope, the jobs aren't sitting at a computer in an office, or sitting at home on a computer. But there ARE jobs, and companies are even extending lucrative jobs to people that DO want to work - part time jobs paying darn well.

jc

Back from yet another ban where I was engaged with ^ that guy and got reported for name calling AGAIN. This is about the 5th time I've caught a ban due to my reactions to this one posters relentless attacks and nitpicking. I'm sure the poster will deny any fault or reporting me again... blah blah blah.

I find it ironic that you post about automated solutions when you're also an advocate for raising the minimum wage.

Incorrect. Yet again. I didn't report anything.

In fact I didn't even see what you called me.

But, I'm glad to see you take personal responsibility for it.........oh, wait, you don't.

You spoke facts in some parts of the country. I spoke facts in another part of the country. You yourself admitted that less than five people per hundred are out of a job in your area yet make it sound like some widespread problem.

4.7%? Yeah, it sounds like a serious issue in your community.

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

That's all I have to say to you.

You're ignoring me, yet felt the need to post about it?

Anyway:

Something you, and others might want to read: https://money.yahoo.com/south-carolina-cancels-federal-unemployment-benefits-212914813.html

Unemployment benefits HAVE gotten too nice to turn down. Why work when you can make as much if not more NOT working?

You may wish to see how that turns out before you claim it will work.

The South Carolina senate also voted to bring back the firing squad to execute corporal punishment and it's awaiting their governors signature.

I think you'll find out that canceling the federal unemployment program may not yield the result you hope it will.

From the article...

‘Limited evidence of work disincentives'

Several papers have established that the extra $600 in benefits distributed earlier in the pandemic had limited labor supply effects and likely didn’t disincentivize work, including one by the National Bureau of Economic Research and another by Yale University. The current supplemental benefit is worth half of what those papers reviewed.

"The 100% federally-paid unemployment benefits have boosted spending and contributed to the strong economic recovery," Stettner said. "It's shortsighted for the state to sacrifice that economic stimulus based on the anecdotal labor shortages concerns of a few employers, especially given the limited evidence of work disincentives from unemployment pay during the pandemic."

And here are a couple of other juicy tidbits.

As of now the federal unemployment benefits are down to $300 a week, not $600.

South Carolina state benefits last a total of 20 weeks. So anyone trying to "milk the system due to Covid" in South Carolina ran out of state benefits long ago and are are only drawing $300 a week in federal benefits now.

Not quite the cash cow some are making it out to be.

Maybe that does qualify as "too nice to turn down" but I'm just not seeing it.

All the BS about people staying on unemployment over going back to work has less to do with the money they are getting from unemployment and more to do with the wages they would be making otherwise. Simple fact is, most sane people will do whatever is in their best interest when it comes to working for wages.

I actually think GOPers share a lot of blame for the low jobs numbers because their anti vaxxing, anti masking, anti facts, and anti American (fascist) behavior and divisiveness have done irreparable damage to the American way of life including working along side of those whose political views we truly despise.

Yes, I can find a way to blame everything on republicans because pretty much all of our hardships are currently at minimum being magnified by their ideology.

I'm not going to get into that portion of the debate. But they do seem to fall for false narratives. Some more than others.

Anyone who lost their jobs more than 20 weeks ago have exhausted all of their state benefits in both South Carolina and Montana. The federal program only pays $300 a week now. So the entire premise of those staying on unemployment because it's some cash cow or too nice to turn down is a false narrative.

Even when looking at their current unemployment rates show plainly that the unemployment rates in both states are not unusually high. But it makes them "feel good" to believe it.

So, if they've lost their unemployment benefits, does that mean they aren't factored in to their states unemployment numbers?

The standard unemployment rate, referred to as U-3, is the one most often cited. By that measure, a person is counted as unemployed if he or she does not have a full-time, part-time, or temporary job, is actively looking for a job, and is currently available to be hired.

those who want and are available for a job and have actively looked for a job within the preceding 12 months but not within the preceding four weeks—are considered neither employed nor unemployed and thus not part of the labor force.

https://www.britannica.com/story/how-is-...loyment%20rate.

What it means is it has zero impact on what you claim cutting off federal unemployment benefits will help solve. Your claim is that giant $300 per week is "too nice to turn down", thus the cause for people not returning to work.

We'll see.

In all fairness you are right and wrong Pit. My daughter works cases for ODJFS and has explained some of this to me because she has had to do eligibility reviews. Let's say Joe makes a $1000 a week working his JOB when he is laid off. In Ohio the base rate for unemployment is 50% of your normal weekly earnings. This amount is adjusted according to your number of dependents. So, Joe gets $500 base, up to a max of $672 with dependents. Then the fed plus up of $300 is added. The most anyone is getting is $972 as I understand it, based on them making around $1000 or more normally and their total number of dependents. Then each person can opt-in to have taxes of 10% withheld.

Gig workers and the self employed are treated the same, but since many don't have a regular income (check) so they either base the PUA on previous years taxes OR in the case of people not being able to prove previous income (like they started this year) they get the minimum of $189 plus the fed plus up of $300 for a whopping $489 a week.

So the only possible people making more on unemployment would be those in the range of $600 or less normal weekly income. $600/2 = $300 + $300 plus up = $600. But $500/2 = $250 + $300 = $550; in this case more. Basically the GOPer argument is that the very poorest Americans might be getting an extra $50 to $100 or so a week above and beyond what they would make working. TBH, I can't see foregoing a new job for that.

Here's the thing. You only get so many weeks of state unemployment before those benefits run out. In Ohio it used to be 26 weeks. In South Carolina it's 20 weeks.

So if in fact people are trying to use the system to avoid going back to work, they would have to had been laid off in the past 6 months or so. Most businesses heavily impacted by Covid such as restaurants and the service industry were laying off when the lock downs first took place over a year ago. They no longer qualify for state benefits.

There's also another fact people are overlooking. If you're drawing unemployment and your employer calls you back to work, if you refuse work you no longer qualify for unemployment. Anyone who has ever collected unemployment knows that if you refuse to return to work when your employer calls you back that's an immediate disqualification to be eligible to collect unemployment.

It's one of those issues that makes for a great sound bite but when you look beneath the surface doesn't really add up.

Perhaps you're forgetting about the extended unemployment benefits?

The U.S. chamber of commerce disagrees with you.

Top economists disagree. (I think I read The Economist for that info).

And Obama's top economist disagrees with you.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obamas-former-top-economist-outlines-121000849.html

From the article, he lists 5 reasons, in his opinion:



Now, we can toss out early retirement, as if someone retires, they aren't looking for work.

School closures somehow relate to unemployment?

Furman also added:

He said it was a factor, but quickly added "not the main one" in his democratic opinion. Of course, he mentions it, then poo poos it.

You keep citing 20 weeks to 26 weeks of unemployment benefits when, in actuality, some states have extended that to as much as 60-72 weeks.





I know for a fact that almost EVERY business around here, and actually probably nationwide, is looking for employees. They can't find them. Why?

And Tennessee just limited theirs to 12 weeks. I would like for you to show where either Montana or South Carolina extended their state unemployment to 60-72 weeks. You see, this claim is the only cause they are using to stop federal unemployment benefits. Actually, up until now you have claimed it's the major reason for it.

Your source lists it as one of several reasons for it.

I have no idea where you got this " some states have extended that to as much as 60-72 weeks"

Here is a list of all states and their current amount of state weekly benefit allowances for unemployment as of May 3rd.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/how-many-weeks-of-unemployment-compensation-are-available

There are 14 states that have extended benefits. None of them reach the 60-72 weeks you claim. So you are trying to use the exception to the rule as your basis.

I was wrong on the 60 to 72 weeks number. My apologies.

Depending on location.....well, here, read it yourself:


Again, I think you possibly forgot about the extensions?

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/unemployment-insurance-extended-benefit-programs-4802217


Finally.

From the article:

The table in your link does not include extensions. For Colorado it shows 26 weeks + 13.

Colorado unemployment insurance

Standard claim - 26 weeks
Cares act - 13 weeks
CAA - 11 weeks
American Rescue Plan - 29 weeks

26 + 13 + 11 + 29 = 79 weeks