It has recently been announced that the Brisbane Arrnots factory is to shed up to 400 jobs in favour of more automated equipment.

After all, I guess one can't blame them as some of the workers there get paid in excess of $25 per hour simply to work on a semi automated processing line. Their primary role in many cases is simply to discard faulty product.

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of something that has been threatening to come about for some time.

And of cause, as usual, the government will reward the foriegn owned jiant for sacking these workers and buying new 'imported' equipment.

It's sad to think it has come to this, but the warning signs have been out there for all to see, yet wage increases still go ahead even though profits are falling.

It's a simple matter of doing the math.

400 x $20 per week adds $416,000 per year to the bottom line.

The figures I read were not 400 jobs lost rehctub, but 140 full time jobs and 50 casual jobs.

$25 per hour. Greedy swine. How dare they hope to keep up with the cost of living on that inflated income.

Sheesh..rehctub one day you might actually write a piece about the greed and excesses of senior management in some of these companies and wonder at how savings might be made by reducing CEO salaries (usually in the millions) and getting rid of so called KPI bonuses which are paid even when losses are made. The financial boys network is where the real greed lies, sooner people like you see that the better off all of us will be.

The problem is not paying workers a 'living wage' but the impact of globalisation and free trade where poorer economies are being used as the benchmark for standard of living and greed has overridden social conscience. How much profit is enough?

*How much profit is enough?*

What if the business is running at a loss?

What if the business is running at a loss?

Has anyone seen the film. "Inside Job?" It's about what happened with the global financial crisis. The CEOs of the multinational corporations, the bankers, none of them took any cuts - they were making money hand over fist while their companies went down. And none of these people have ever been brought to account for their actions. None have had criminal charges levied against them - for the damage they did. I recommend you see the film. It's an eye-opener and it should be now available on DVD.

As for man versus machine? There will always be jobs for people - machines need to be operated by someone as well as maintained - until they can think for themselves I don't believe there will be a problem.
At least - not yet.

If the business is running at a loss why look only to the income of the lowest paid?

What does the senior end get paid per year. I am all for paying more money for increased responsibility and hours worked but how much should the highest paid worker earn compared to the lowest paid. What is a reasonable difference and why must the poor always prop up the richest in our society.

The elephant in the room is government support of unfettered free trade and globalisation.

At least to Arnotts' credit, they are attempting to keep the factory in Australia - so far.

*None have had criminal charges levied against them - for the damage they did. *

Ah Lexi, but CEOs are in fact workers at the top of the food chain.
The losses were born by the owners, ie the shareholders.

The SEC is trying very hard to charge Goldman Sachs and some of its
employees, but the problem is that you cannot charge people with
stupidity. They have to actually break a law to be charged. Proving
that is not always simple.

A CEO can very easily bankrupt a company as we saw with Lehmans.
Luckily in this case he also had skin in the game as a shareholder
and lost 400 million. Good. But CEOs as just workers can walk away
scott free, if stupidity was the problem.

Rechtub it is true, you have a fixation with workers wages/unions having to pay anyone.
And I think you are poorer for it.
Face facts, people on every side of politics too need to.
Capitalism is here to stay, tell me it is not and I demand what is the alternative and prove it.
Industrialization started with the invention of machines.
And changed the world, with city's becoming the center not country villages.
Machinery takes jobs lowers costs increases living standards, and makes new jobs.
Some cry crocodile tears about our manufacturing industry's shrinking, but buy cheaper over seas imports only.
To stop progress is not going to happen, will you go back to 1925 to dig ditches by hand?
I think old mate you should put your feet up sell out to a younger less fixed and stale person and watch you old business grow.

Dear Yabby,

It seems somehow a question of ethics to be squirreling money away at a frantic pace while your company and its shareholders are going down the gurgler - and being head of the corporation you have no moral obligation to anyone but yourself? To me that's totally wrong - and corrupt.

And the over-popluation is not going to bite us all in the ass......lol...again! Humans are the dumbest creatures ever. Gangs are taking over, unemployment back on the rise, religion marching thought reansoned thinking, and now the latest......" the world has done away with the bio-human, and replaced it with robots/machines that takes the place of you and I"......not too smart are we:)
By the middle of this century, 4 billion humans are only whats needed.....but the reality now is.....7 billion and growing by the minuet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v-spW3cMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKfVwcVwnro&feature=related

We may as well join organized crime, indicators tells that a career that field seem to hold more prosperity than the currant system working from a 9 to 5 lie our governments say is waiting for us.

MMMMM...what to make of all this?

New inventions have been displacing people from their jobs for millennia. That's not the problem. The real problem is that technological progress, especially at today's accelerating rate, outpaces the ability for our culture to integrate and adapt to those inventions. So I don't worry about a machine taking my job. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before that happens. I just worry that when it does happen, it won't be good news.

But at least for now, until all global currencies collapse and people (or computers) have to entirely re-imagine value exchange, get ready for more debates about why people should or shouldn't be doing perfectly mundane jobs that machines can do just as well or better. These next few recent innovations represent varying degrees of threat to human employment.

Top jobs today:)

Drug dealing
Freud
Corruption ( CEO,s )
Politics
Cocaine dealing
People smuggling
The bent side of the police force
and the list seems to be endless.

No! there's no problem in getting a job now days, is there:)

LEA

rehctub, I would not be too concerned of machines taking over our jobs. As in the case of the motor car, it started from simple beginnings and today there are thosands employed in the manufacture, maintenance, operation, spare parts, the list is never ending.
So too with production machines, robotics, it will get more complicated and sophisticated which will require highly skilled workers to manufacture and maintain this equipment.
Yes, it is painful when one loses their job but the government provides means for and aid for re-training that's why we have technical colleges, and on the job training to give these people a future.

*and being head of the corporation you have no moral obligation to anyone but yourself? To me that's totally wrong - and corrupt.*

Lexi I agree. But its no different for lower rung workers, greed is
a human foible. That is why it is so difficult to find good
CEOs, they can easily send a company broke and shareholders lose
everything. Not so with unskilled production line workers.

CEOs are highly paid as showing great judgement is actually quite
a rare skill. Even many CEOs don't have it.

So let me get this strait. We as humans breed uncontrollably with the full knowledge that IA is going to be the norm? is that right?

Question! What the hell are we doing?

Are we tiring to join the dinosaurs?

Lets have a look at the car industrious evolution. Then BHP and its connings of the workers. 22.000 down to 6000 and the reasons are just the same:) so why are we increasing Australian numbers instead of decreasing?

I know this guy looks a little strange, but can you dismiss the points he out-lines?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw9fCnn4KyE&feature=related

LEAP

We coasted along till about mid 1700.
Workers in England at least, worked on farms or share farmed, virtually the property of land owners.
Then came Industrialization, the machines age and Capitalism, all supported by credit, the ability to buy more than we could afford.
As we developed and those dreadful workers wanted more we changed.
Workers got better wages and living conditions.
Every one got higher living standards, new industry's and products came in to being ,to supply the new living standard.
Along comes my mate Rechtub, he has mates,maybe all great grand children of British land owners.
Unable to see the link wages/living standards/consumers = profits wages = consumers these folk want to Begin the cycle from scratch.
In cutting incomes Rechtub we cut consumerism/production/profits/ living standards.
Find some one young, at heart at least, sell out,in 5 years ask why?

At least Arnotts actually makes something the people can consume.What about the banking system that creates money from nothing to equal increases in our GDP + inflation and loans it to us as debt?

When Keating sold off the Commonwealth in 1995 Howard needed the GST to service private debt to the banks.Only sovereighn Govts should have the power to create new money.

So Arjay, would you like to deny banks the right to lend out money
which they borrow from depositers?

rehctub, the higher goals of automation were to liberate lower paid labor from the tedium of repetitive work.

I guess the concept of increasing the size of businesses, generating economic growth to develop new industries with higher paid and less manual labor was a great idea that most would support.

It seems that corporate greed kicked in and the only thing that grew was corporate profits.

I still can’t work out if the overall benefit has been to provide the national wealth to fund social development through growing industrialization, or if the balance has now tipped in favor of commerce and industrialization.

It’s like everything in life, once that balance is lost, social equity goes out the window.

The original concept was for man to use the “machine” to increase our standard of living rather than to compete with it. We can’t live with them and we can’t live without them, but overall I think those nations with automation based commerce and industrialization are better off than those without it.

Some might wish to go back to the horse and cart but I’m not one of them.

machines don't have soul, much like some of our top bureaucrats. btw. the battle's lost already for this generation. However, I can see a revival of common sense in the next generation when food gets scarce & people are getting fed-up with moron bureaucrats.
Common sense has to to come back , it's nature's law.

Yabby you know full well what I'm talking about.Depositor money should and can be loaned out.I'M talking about the new money created by the fractional reserve system to equal your GDP which the Commonwealth and 4 other Govt Banks used to create from nothing, keeping our taxes lower or providing infrastructure debt free.

Private Banks should not utter new currency.That is the job of sovereign Govts.No more obsfucation please.

*Depositor money should and can be loaned out*

Well Arjay, that is all that banks do, which still has not sunk
in with you.

So where does the new money come from Yabby to equal increases in GDP + inflation? You see to have a steady state view on economics.Does growth and inflation not happen in your world? Now no obsfucation this time.

Arjay, the very nature of lending money that was previously banked,
increases the money supply. The only ones who can create new money
from nothing are Reserve Banks and their profits go to Govt.

The reason why we keep Reserve Banks at arms length from Govt and
give them a mandate to make decisions which are to keep the economy
in a healthy state, is that it avoids politicians from doing a
Mugabe and running the Reserve Bank to win the next election.
If it were not so, every second politician would be cranking up
the printing presses for his electoral short term benefit

I think you need to look at the reality Yabby. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking This shows the operation of Commercial Banks and the actual mechanism by which new money is created as debt by them.This is a 5:1 ratio with reserve deposits of 20%.

Arjay I know full well how fractional reserve banking works.
Banks cannot lend out all the money which they borrow, they need
to keep certain reserves on hand, some of it as Tier 1 capital.

The point remains, they cannot just create money out of nothing.
Otherwise there would be no good reason to fight for depositers
money, which they do. No need to go paying 6% Arjay. Have a look
at any banks financials. It will show you what was received in
interest and what was paid out in interest on deposits. It will
once and for all put your flawed understanding to bed, if nothing
else will.

Unfortunately I have been away so this debate may have ended.