Psyral Infection said

Old Mr Dangerous said
Lucem isnt always right, but he is winning this debate on every level at the moment. Composure, data, patience, clarity and honesty. 

Posting a meme about that guy who lied about the Trump beating neither adds or solves a thing.  

Winning this debate? I decided not to respond because I felt that he completely did not understand what I was saying and I think that we may be at an impasse in his understanding of what I say. Probably the same impasse of my understanding of his.

I will try break down his last post from mine. Hopefully it will better explain my points. ... 

Winning the debate isn't based on who responds faster it's about what you respond with.

King Lucem Ferre said

...

Psyral Infection said

King Lucem Ferre said
Fucked up thing is, with this pandemic businesses are going to start looking even more into how to replace humans with automation. At that point capitalism is going to fail us like it did Detroit when the factories started getting automated. It makes the most sense. Machines don't get sick, they don't have emotions, they don't need raises and they stay consistent....

But someone has to design, program, and set up the automation. That's where I come in. That's my job. 

Cool. When automation comes in full effect that's not going to provide enough jobs for the people who get replaced. Detroit being proof.

The full nature of my post was to show what automation can be with examples from the company I work for, not what it has been or is in others. In my experience, automation can be done without replacing anyone.

The company I work for does a good job at automation progression. We don't automate anyone out of a job. We automate to assist employees to free up more of their time to work on other projects that are less monotonous and lead to expansion instead of using their time to do something that is nothing more than daily company maintenance. 

If they could replace you they would. I assure you.

As I said, they do not do that. The company has NEVER replaced anyone in our company where we automated their job. It is a policy that the owner refuses to break. Why would they replace me when they have never done it to anyone else.

My company has never let anyone go due to automation (or even for economic turndown). If automation is done well, it expands the employee's duties instead of replacing the employee.

That's literally the dumbest thing I ever heard. Automation is specifically designed to replace humans for the reasons I stated plus the fact that working is harder.

They do not automate to replace employees. They only do it make employee's work easier. We have had jobs that get automated and the employees that did those jobs were trained and promoted to different positions in the company. My company shows that automation does not have to replace humans but assist them in their jobs. I don't understand why you think it's dumb to use automation in a way to not replace employees.

I know that not all companies have this philosophy (I've been told I work for a unique company - we've been listed every year as one of the top places to work in Houston) but it is an example of how automation can work and how companies can be run.

Depends. What are you doing? From what I understand you're into programming or something like that. The crux of the job force is hard labor. There is no keeping hard labor jobs when automation is introduced.

We have close half of our employees who do the manual labor. We have introduced automation in many ways in their jobs. Not once have we let anyone go. There is a way to keep the hard labor jobs with automation. Employees are trained (my company sends people to school and training classes all the time) and move to different positions in the company, sometimes laterally but many times it is a vertical move.

The reason why it's dumb is because a company's job from the very beginning is to make money. That's capitalism. Make as much money as possible. Replacing employees with automation increases the capital you make when you don't have to shell out money to human beings. Automation is meant to reduce the amount of work humans have to do and the end goal is obviously to eliminate the work. It is impossible to eliminate work and retain jobs. Example is working at the Brewery we had a machine that required 5 people to run it. They upgraded it and it only required 3. There's nothing to do with the other 2 employees because we didn't need them and there is no position or training or higher up place that we could put them. It'd be a waste of money to keep them so we fire them. It's common sense, really.

It is based on works by Ken Blanchard and Sheldon Bowles who authored several books on business ethics, employee (not customer) based business models, and the idea of automatic all-employee profit sharing.

Dude, your company is literally communist. That's literally communism. Everybody is entitled to the means of production.

Not communist at all. Nothing is owned by anyone else except the owner. The government does not own any means of production and neither do the employees. Profit sharing was born out of capitalism. The more profit the company makes, the more money the employees get. Only employees can get that benefit, not the commun-ity or populous. It is not means of production, it is monetary profit of those means. It is "literally" (improper use of the word, hence in quotes) a monetary incentivized model to enhance productivity. How is that not capitalism at it's finest.

Technically, yes, the owner owns the means of production but speaking in a small scale with in the community of your work place his policy is communist because he believes everybody is entitled to the means of production.

If you ensure that all the employees are always happy and benefit directly and proportionately from the financial success of the company, it creates an environment where these happy employees naturally want happy customers.

Ja, building a good environment for your workers is proven to boost productivity even at reduced hours. This was covered in a Micheal Moor documentary about the failings of American capitalism. Thanks for backing my point. The reality about the American work force that apparently you don't get, and definitely Smack doesn't get, is we are overworked and underpaid to inhumane levels.

I DO get that. I was showing an example, as I stated, that it does not have to be that way. I am neither overworked or underpaid and I can't think of a single employee at my company who thinks they are. It's probably why this company makes the list of top companies to work for in Houston every year. 

Unfortunately, Capitalism breeds out these kinds of ethics because it creates a competition to make the most money.

It has worked well for this company since the 1970s.  

Wow, communist ideas work well for a company. Should be ringing a bell for ya, yeah.

But the free market and liberals being devils and socialism bad and blah blah blah nobody can drop their mainstream political identities force fed to them to give any critical thought towards the discussion. Too bad.  

Again, not communist. No commune ownership. Only profit incentives. I would call it ethical capitalism.

Again, smaller scale, the owner thinks the community of the workplace is entitled to the means of production. What do you think happens in a communist society when we produce more? Maybe more profit? So you could call that profit incentives? As a small scale economic platform (thinking purely with in the scale of the company, should have been obvious from the start TBH) it's not capitalism because each worker isn't paid on the amount of work they personally do. It's not socialism because he's not redistributing the wealth. It's communism because feels the whole company is entitled to the profits of the company. Most work places are either feudalistic in how they treat the profits.

Hopefully that better explained my points. ... Probably not, though. The divide in methods of thinking are distinct and lead to very different conclusions to views on the same thing. The political makeup of the country is a good example. The left does not understand the right and the right does not understand the left. They, of course, think they understand or at least have examples of why the other side thinks the way it does. They usually think that they are correct about their thinking of the "why" of the other side, usually leading to blanket or stereotypic attacks on the ideas, motivations, and methods of the other. The divide shows in the complete dismissal of anything coming from the other side and the subconscious misinterpretations of anything originating from them. 

Nah. I don't identify with a side. I lean a way but I don't identify with a side. That's why I think it's stupid. People who identify with sides get lazy and let that side do all the thinking for them. It's blatantly true because we've all had an identity influence a bias that obscured us from the truth before. I don't think everybody on your side believes things for the same reasons. I think most use it as a crutch to shield them from uncertainty because confusion scares people and picking a side gives people answers, even if they are wrong. How ever, I think you and Smack are cut from very different cloths when it comes to your side. I think smack is deep down bigoted and you're just desperately trying to defend or twist anything your side does around to save face. I treat individuals as individuals no matter the side.

Can it ever be resolved? Can the sides ever see "eye to eye"? Who knows? I don't think it is possible at this particular junction. It is a virtual fight at this point and the one with the greatest number of votes (not necessarily voters) will "win".  Personally I think the side that will "win" will be the political right - which makes me happy.  

Or how about quit using labels to do your thinking for you and think as an individual.

There's no possible way that so many humans can perfectly agree on so many issues that have little to nothing to do with each other.

Q said

 
    

Then you must be checking 4 Chan for guidance again.

and Biden is the great white hope for the democratic soyflakes

if Biden does win (and he wont) whoever he pics as his veep will be president before the first year is up he clearly has dementia and it's getting worst by the day.

I can't wait for Trump to debate that guy

Eloquent response as ever krunk. Cuz I definitely have Trump derangement. Let's just pile anyobody who asks critical questions into one blob. Works every time right?

Psyral, I agree with you on that one. He cant do a god damn thing. The threat is the fucked up part. I guess its cool to threaten free speech if it aint your people being silenced huh?