So the machines come, what about our economy?

[repiV]

oh dear god ..stick a sales person in a classroom ful of yelling kids and he'll have a meltdow, givbe him a shovel and 2 tons of sand to back fill before lunchtime and he's bne a quivering mass by the time the break truck drives by n...you're not doing bloody rocket science repiv YOU'RE SELLING

Why do you always feel compelled to jump to the defence of whoever is opposing me? It's pathetic.
I never claimed sales was rocket science, so what the **** are you talking about anyway?
Either way, nearly 90% of CEOs of FTSE500 companies come from a sales background. You think that's a coincidence...?

 

[Pulse]

HL2.net - The only place on the Internet where you'll find experienced Salesmen wailing on 15 year old Llamas.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

In the kind of world where machines would be dominant, Engineers and Scientist would reign supreme.

Is this kind of world, there would be acceleration towards new discoveries and Inventions.

 

[Llama]

You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. The suggestion that a company can do well without doing anything right is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Poor helpless repiV
Has sony done anything right lately? What about microsoft? What about HSBC?
You don't seem to understand that as a company gets larger It starts making more and more stupid decisions. It still does well because IT'S A BIG COMPANY.
it doesn't need to make good decisions, because people will buy into it anyway.

Not only that, most consumers don't see the majority of **** ups execs make, because it's to do with the staff. Will the consumers know if the top brass wait till last minute before asking one man to create 500 displacement letters that the man has known about for months (but can't do because the top brass have withheld the data needed)?

Will they ****.

So what?

Nice counter-argument. Well done, salesman!

What the ****?
Again, you're talking out of your arse. You're 15 ****ing years old, you've never had a proper job, and you dare to tell a salesperson what it's like to work in sales. Arrogant ****ing cock...sales is one of the hardest jobs out there. 70% of people burn out of recruitment in particular within six months.

hahahahahaha.
Sales, hard? get the **** out, you should try working in services, like i've told you before. Then you'd know what real work is.

Yeah, so what? Are you so fixated on how much you know about something you have no ****ing clue about that you forgot there is more money to be made in certain industries at certain times than in others?
You mentioned banks - no ****ing shit he makes 300k a year. Financial services is where the real money is.

Hmm, strange, it's still split up into different sections. Your 150k friend should have moved over here in sales. Pretty much the same idea.

Sales managers have to worry about their sales staff, dipshit. Many organisations, like recruitment companies for example, are all about sales in every aspect.
I worked in recruitment for a while and I'm currently a telesales team leader selling pay-per-click advertising to businesses. Now **** off.

I'm sure telling your worker bees to sell more is a highly taxing form of management.
I don't think you get this, do you? To do well in sales, you Sell. That's it. End of story.

No, you're not. You're an arrogant, clueless **** with a real chip on your shoulder. Someone ought to punch you in the face.

Am I being threatened to a salesman on the internet? Wow. I see that the arguments you have are many layered and not at all badly thought out.

Why don't you back up your bullshit first? You don't know **** all and you think you know it all. You make Solaris look like the most humble and knowledgable person in the world.

Heh, way to insult him at the same time, very mature
I'm waiting for you to back up yours, it's called burden of proof. You made a stupid claim, I'm asking you to prove it.

 

[99.vikram]

It still does well because IT'S A BIG COMPANY.
it doesn't need to make good decisions, because people will buy into it anyway.

Not only that, most consumers don't see the majority of **** ups execs make, because it's to do with the staff.

Big companies fall flat on their face if they keep making f*ck ups. Massive companies like Sony and MS always try some high risk stuff that can fail horribly, but they survive because the company's foundation is solid. A failed effort or one screw up is not bad management. You have to stop spouting bullsh*t just because you love daddy. Get over it.

Execs and managers are paid higher because they take riskier decisions.
People aren't paid for how hard they work, but for how valuable they are to the organization. Unfair, isn't it?

I don't think you get this, do you? To do well in sales, you Sell. That's it. End of story.

You, of course, know this from your first hand experience in sales.
Sales requires as much if not more decision making and quick thinking than middle management (the safest place in the ladder).

Am I being threatened to a salesman on the internet?
...
Heh, way to insult him at the same time, very mature

Fail at logic, fail at sarcasm, fail, fail, FAIL.

PS: I still hate RepiV. Make no mistake.

 

[Llama]

Big companies fall flat on their face if they keep making f*ck ups. Massive companies like Sony and MS always try some high risk stuff that can fail horribly, but they survive because the company's foundation is solid.

They evidently don't, since I have constant details on these **** ups. Plus, that's pretty much what I'm saying, except you are under the delusion that business runs smoothly and that only high risk stuff is caused by management.

A failed effort or one screw up is not bad management. You have to stop spouting bullsh*t just because you love daddy. Get over it.

No, one isn't. But constant screw ups are. So shut the hell up, since you have no idea what you're on about.

Execs and managers are paid higher because they take riskier decisions.
People aren't paid for how hard they work, but for how valuable they are to the organization. Unfair, isn't it?

They might take riskier decisions, but that doesn't affect the execs in a negative way, does it?

You, of course, know this from your first hand experience in sales.
Sales requires as much if not more decision making and quick thinking than middle management (the safest place in the ladder).

LOL. You would know this how? Oh wait, you don't, you have no idea what you're talking about, how could you?

Fail at logic, fail at sarcasm, fail, fail, FAIL.

Convincing. :dozey:

PS: I still hate RepiV. Make no mistake.

Well dur?

 

[Pulse]

Wow what a pile of inane, colloquial drivel this thread has turned into, as per the norm with the Politics forum. I have to address some of these points though as they are mind boggling:

Poor helpless repiV
Has sony done anything right lately? What about microsoft? What about HSBC?

Firstly you question the operational integrity of multinational, market leading firms worth in excess of millions... and ponder whether or not they are doing things 'right'? Ok...

You don't seem to understand that as a company gets larger It starts making more and more stupid decisions. It still does well because IT'S A BIG COMPANY.

What a ludicrous assumption to make. You're telling me that corporate growth ultimately leads to poor executive decision making? And that managerial negligence is perfectly acceptable and will have no impact on the firm's reputation, product quality or financial margins, just because the company is big?!

it doesn't need to make good decisions, because people will buy into it anyway.

See above.

Not only that, most consumers don't see the majority of **** ups execs make, because it's to do with the staff.

Enron ring any bells?

Will the consumers know if the top brass wait till last minute before asking one man to create 500 displacement letters that the man has known about for months (but can't do because the top brass have withheld the data needed)?

Will they ****.

What on earth was that in English? Just sounds like some drivel repeated from your Dad, taken completely out of context and made even more irrelevant.

 

[repiV]

PS: I still hate RepiV. Make no mistake.

That's cool - you saved me from having to waste any more time on this complete tool. I wub you. <3

 

[Llama]

Wow what a pile of inane, colloquial drivel this thread has turned into, as per the norm with the Politics forum. I have to address some of these points though as they are mind boggling:

Firstly you question the operational integrity of multinational, market leading firms worth in excess of millions... and ponder whether or not they are doing things 'right'? Right.

Yeah, and have you actually got an argument to back up your supposed idea that my claim is incorrect?

What a ludicrous assumption to make. You're telling me that corporate growth ultimately leads to poor executive decision making? And that managerial negligence is perfectly acceptable and will have no impact on the firm's reputation, product quality or financial margins, just because the company is big?!

Are you under the impression that everyone knows how often things screw up? Since when did I say it was 'acceptable', of course it isn't , that's the entire point of the argument I had with repiV.
Yes, the bigger a company gets, the worse it gets at making a good decision that works. How do you expect to keep quality up with 150,000 people to deal with rather than 50? You can't, plain and simple.

See above.

Just did.

Enron ring any bells?

Did I say all? Or most?

What on earth was that in English? Just sounds like some drivel repeated from your Dad, taken completely out of context and made even more irrelevant.

Oo, insulting my sentence structure, you must have made a conclusive argument!
Oh, wait, no.
+ No, much as you might like to suppose, that example was an example.

oh and repiV, I'm still waiting for an explanation on why working in sales is more taxing than forced manual child labour. Come up with anything yet? That was the start of this argument, as such a superior being, I'd have thought you'd addressed it by now.

 

[repiV]

oh and repiV, I'm still waiting for an explanation on why working in sales is more taxing than forced manual child labour. Come up with anything yet? That was the start of this argument, as such a superior being, I'd have thought you'd addressed it by now.
[/B]

First of all, I didn't say that "working in sales is more taxing than forced manual child labour". Secondly, it was a ****ing stupid comparison for Solaris to make in the first place, but I ran with it because, well, yes, running a company is harder than putting together toys. That's pretty much a no-brainer.
Secondly, until you stop being a cocky, arrogant little shit, you can just keep on waiting.

 

[Llama]

First of all, I didn't say that "working in sales is more taxing than forced manual child labour". Secondly, it was a ****ing stupid comparison for Solaris to make in the first place, but I ran with it because, well, yes, running a company is harder than putting together toys.
Secondly, until you stop being a cocky, arrogant little shit, you can just keep on waiting.

Oh, dear oh dear oh dear.

Because they work so much harder than those 14year old kids working 14hour days in sweatshops for less than a dollar.
Well, actually, yes they do. Although your snide comment has **** all relevance to anything, given that you're comparing developed economies with developing ones.

No wonder you're a salesman, you could bullshit for England

You wonder why no one takes you seriously?

I've probably been talking out my ass, but I don't care, since I did so because I called you on your bullshit.

So, got a reason? Or have you given up yet?

 

[repiV]

Oh, dear oh dear oh dear.



No wonder you're a salesman, you could bullshit for England

Firstly, we were talking about executives, not salespeople. Secondly, nobody said anything about forced labour. You invented that one. Not that the work would be any more challenging just because you had to do it.
Now shut the **** up.

You wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Plenty of people take me seriously, and with good reason. Noone is taking you seriously though.

I've probably been talking out my ass, but I don't care, since I did so because I called you on your bullshit.

So, got a reason? Or have you given up yet?

You're a cocky little piece of shit without a clue in the world - stop trying to sound threatening in order to appear otherwise.

 

[Pulse]

Yeah, and have you actually got an argument to back up your supposed idea that my claim is incorrect?

My apologies, you must've been unable to comprehend what I just said. Your claim is completely incorrect as a 15 year old's idea of 'doing things right' is completely irrelevant to corporations such as Sony, HSBC, Microsoft etc. Unless of course you're the youngest business financial advisor known to mankind that is.

Are you under the impression that everyone knows how often things screw up? Since when did I say it was 'acceptable', of course it isn't , that's the entire point of the argument I had with repiV.
Yes, the bigger a company gets, the worse it gets at making a good decision that works. How do you expect to keep quality up with 150,000 people to deal with rather than 50? You can't, plain and simple.

Quality assurance? Layers of hierarchy? Kaizen groups? Cell production? You're having a bloody laugh my friend if you think large firms can't maintain quality just because their workforce increases.

Oo, insulting my sentence structure, you must have made a conclusive argument!
Oh, wait, no.
+ No, much as you might like to suppose, that example was an example.

It was a valid point, what you said didn't make any sense whatsoever and was completely irrelevant to this context.

 

[Geogaddi]

**** working hard.

 

[Llama]

Firstly, we were talking about executives, not salespeople. Secondly, nobody said anything about forced labour. You invented that one. Not that the work would be any more challenging just because you had to do it.
Now shut the **** up.

Oh well, I misused one word. You still haven't explained or proven anything though. So no, I won't shut up.
Then again, sweat shops probably COULD qualify as forced labor anyway, so your argument on that front means nothing. So, explain.

Btw, you managed to (despite being oh-so-smart) totally mis understand the salesman comment. Which is kind of ironic, really.

Plenty of people take me seriously, and with good reason. Noone is taking you seriously though.

Who takes you seriously?

I'm not taken seriously?
Oh noes? I'm fifteen, I have an excuse (I'm supposed to be ignorant) You don't.

You're a cocky little piece of shit without a clue in the world - stop trying to sound threatening in order to appear otherwise.

So in other words, you haven't got anything to back your claim up, and you're just trying to call me threatening to attempt to invalidate my argument. Good job.
I'm still waiting.

Pulse, I'm not going to discuss this with you since I have nothing against you, and since a lot of what I said was heat-of-the-moment stuff, while trying to talk to this muppet (repiV).

 

[99.vikram]

They evidently don't, since I have constant details on these **** ups. Plus, that's pretty much what I'm saying, except you are under the delusion that business runs smoothly and that only high risk stuff is caused by management.

No offense, man, but I trust the shareholders of MS and Sony a lot more than you.
If they are making gargantuan mistakes in decision making, it wouldn't be a secret.

Shareholders will call companies on their BS before consumers.

 

[Pulse]

Pulse, I'm not going to discuss this with you since I have nothing against you, and since a lot of what I said was heat-of-the-moment stuff, while trying to talk to this muppet (repiV).

You don't need to have a personal vendetta just to engage in a debate with someone, the only reason I even bothered posting in this thread was to address your interpretation of the world of business.

Here's a protip for both you and repiV: Insult tennis doesn't encourage anyone to take either of you any more seriously than the other; you both look equally retarded. I know this is a forum for heated discussions, but 90% of the time threads just descend into 13 pages worth of 'Oh you are a ****ing ****er' or 'Your country is ****ing shit because I said so'.

A little posture wouldn't hurt sometimes, HL2.net.

 

[repiV]

Oh well, I misused one word. You still haven't explained or proven anything though. So no, I won't shut up.
Then again, sweat shops probably COULD qualify as forced labor anyway, so your argument on that front means nothing. So, explain.

Not really - noone is forced to work there so it isn't forced labour. It's really quite simple.

Who takes you seriously?

I'm not taken seriously?
Oh noes? I'm fifteen, I have an excuse (I'm supposed to be ignorant) You don't.

If you recognise that you're ignorant, why don't you shut your mouth already? And also recognise that by virtue of being ignorant, you are in no position to judge whether or not I am ignorant.

So in other words, you haven't got anything to back your claim up, and you're just trying to call me threatening to attempt to invalidate my argument. Good job.
I'm still waiting.

I never made the claim in the first place, so I have nothing to defend. Now go away.

 

[repiV]

You don't need to have a personal vendetta just to engage in a debate with someone, the only reason I even bothered posting in this thread was to address your interpretation of the world of business.

Here's a protip for both you and repiV: Insult tennis doesn't encourage anyone to take either of you any more seriously than the other; you both look equally retarded. I know this is a forum for heated discussions, but 90% of the time threads just descend into 13 pages worth of 'Oh you are a ****ing ****er' or 'Your country is ****ing shit because I said so'.

A little posture wouldn't hurt sometimes, HL2.net.

I don't have much patience for spotty teenagers with a major attitude problem who think they know it all about something they know nothing about which I have firsthand experience of.
I'm more than happy to have a civil discussion with anyone who isn't a jackass. Hell, I don't even hate vikram. Howsat?

 

[kirovman]

I'm not really prepared to get into this argument, but I've been involved in winning some contracts (just observing discussions and decision making at the moment), and the salesperson's job is rarely easy. Making relationships with another corporate customer, who is by no means naive means that you really have to have to be very convincing, and have a good team who can develop the product to sell.

The salespeople where I work are very overworked, because there's apparently a big shortage of salespeople right now in the South of England. Vacancies have been unfilled long periods of time.

Me, I wouldn't mind a dip into sales experience sometime in the future, it would be a useful skill to have. I'll try to do that after learning about Project Management.

Just my thoughts.

 

[repiV]

I'm not really prepared to get into this argument, but I've been involved in winning some contracts (just observing discussions and decision making at the moment), and the salesperson's job is rarely easy. Making relationships with another corporate customer, who is by no means naive means that you really have to have to be very convincing, and have a good team who can develop the product to sell.

The salespeople where I work are very overworked, because there's apparently a big shortage of salespeople right now in the South of England. Vacancies have been unfilled long periods of time.

Me, I wouldn't mind a dip into sales experience sometime in the future, it would be a useful skill to have. I'll try to do that after learning about Project Management.

Just my thoughts.

You're really mysterious, you know that. You actually reveal how little anyone here knows about you when you talk.

I think sales is fantastic because there is no limit to what you can accomplish. Can be hard work though, and the prospecting part of the job gets really tedious.
You're right about the shortages - I worked in sales recruitment...finding a good salesperson is a nightmare. And there would be a dozen agencies crawling all over anyone even half-decent. Yet clients still weren't willing to pay you a decent rate. And they loved to make crappy hiring decisions. It's definitely an employee's marketplace at the moment.
Does your company need any account managers? I'm on the lookout...

 

[15357]

I don't know why you guys have to insist on saying: "**** you, ignorant asshole" instead of "I'm sorry, but (I think) you're wrong, because of blahblahblah, blahblahblah results in/contributes/whatever blahblahblah."?


Just do what I do, if someone insults you, then it's a joke or a mental problem on the ide of your opponent.

 

[Llama]

Not really - noone is forced to work there so it isn't forced labour. It's really quite simple.

Except, ya'know, your family would die if you didn't, probably through lack of money to buy food. But i'm sure the child workers went there of their own accord, rather than because their parents made them

If you recognise that you're ignorant, why don't you shut your mouth already? And also recognise that by virtue of being ignorant, you are in no position to judge whether or not I am ignorant.

I said I'm supposed to be, not that I am. I would have thought that in a position as challenging as yours, that statement was easy to understand. Evidently, I was mistaken.

I never made the claim in the first place, so I have nothing to defend. Now go away.

Because they work so much harder than those 14year old kids working 14hour days in sweatshops for less than a dollar.
Well, actually, yes they do. Although your snide comment has **** all relevance to anything, given that you're comparing developed economies with developing ones.

Whoops, looks like you did make that claim after all!
I'm still waiting for as explanation as how being a company executive is more challenging than working 14 hours a day in abysmal conditions for almost no money when you're fourteen years old. Perhaps you could just tell me that, since that's the entire argument in a nutshell?

 

[repiV]

Except, ya'know, your family would die if you didn't, probably through lack of money to buy food. But i'm sure the child workers went there of their own accord, rather than because their parents made them

By that logic, almost everyone is a victim of "forced labour". If I didn't work, I wouldn't have enough money to buy food either - what's your point?
The fact that some parents may force their kids to work at sweatshops no more makes it forced labour than parents forcing their kids to go to ballet class makes the ballet teacher a slavedriver.
And guess what - if the sweatshops weren't there, they'd have no choice but to starve. Get back to me when you have a rudimentary understanding of market economics.

I said I'm supposed to be, not that I am. I would have thought that in a position as challenging as yours, that statement was easy to understand. Evidently, I was mistaken.

You are ignorant - you've said mind bendingly stupid things throughout this thread. Quit before you get even further behind.

Whoops, looks like you did make that claim after all!

No, we've been over this before. I didn't claim that salespeople have it harder than slaves. Stop trying to distort my words, asshat.

I'm still waiting for as explanation as how being a company executive is more challenging than working 14 hours a day in abysmal conditions for almost no money when you're fourteen years old. Perhaps you could just tell me that, since that's the entire argument in a nutshell?

If you aren't smart enough to figure out how running a large corporation is more challenging than assembling consumer goods, that's your problem and yours alone.
Here's a hint: anyone is able to work in a sweatshop, and the people who do have no other real choices, which is why they pay a dollar a day to anyone and everyone in the first place. Also known as "supply and demand". Hardly anyone is capable of running a company, which is why successful businesspeople are rich.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

What I've got from this conversation: RepiV has first hand experiance of bieng a salesman. No one he's arguing with does.

 

[Cormeh]

So, what we can ascertain from this thread is that the way forward is using robot-child-forced-labour-bots?

Anyhow, I work in construction. And in 20 years time my role will be a very difficult one to hang onto. Not so much as robots, but the very, very rapid advancement of computer programs for structural calculations and 3D packages that can detail entire projects with only one operator are what threaten a bulk of the workforce.

These applications reduce the hours of input required by staff and lower fees, leaving room for nice profit and repeat business.

On the siteworks side of my industry, robots and machines are doubtful to replace manual labourers. Although, with the ridiculous health and safety epidemic sweeping through Britain it wouldn't surprise me if they replaced men with machines.

 

[Llama]

By that logic, almost everyone is a victim of "forced labour". If I didn't work, I wouldn't have enough money to buy food either - what's your point?
If YOU didn't work, you'd be on benefits, and able to afford food. I have a choice not to work or not, because neither option will result in my DEATH, whereas working in a sweatshop is the only way to gain income.

The fact that some parents may force their kids to work at sweatshops no more makes it forced labour than parents forcing their kids to go to ballet class makes the ballet teacher a slavedriver.
Yes, because it's exactly the same set of circumstances.
Do you think any child working in one of these shops actually has a choice? Or do they all happily toddle off to work 14 hours a day?

And guess what - if the sweatshops weren't there, they'd have no choice but to starve. Get back to me when you have a rudimentary understanding of market economics.
Which adds what to your argument? Oh, wait, nothing.

You are ignorant - you've said mind bendingly stupid things throughout this thread. Quit before you get even further behind.
So, you haven't got anything to do with backing up your claim, and you're asking me to quit? You make me smile, I'll give you that.

No, we've been over this before. I didn't claim that salespeople have it harder than slaves. Stop trying to distort my words, asshat.
No shit, you said executives had it harder. Try reading what I say. I've posted the damn quote several times, are you blind or just arrogant enough to ignore it?

If you aren't smart enough to figure out how running a large corporation is more challenging than assembling consumer goods, that's your problem and yours alone.
Nice way to put child labor, 'assembling consumer goods' - do you think using euphemisms is going to make your argument any more valid?

Here's a hint: anyone is able to work in a sweatshop, and the people who do have no other real choices, which is why they pay a dollar a day to anyone and everyone in the first place.
This affects how difficult it is...how?
Anyone can be given a gun and told to march over a ladder into a wall of machine guns, does that mean it's an easy thing to do?
Just because it's the only option does not make it easier. Can't you grasp that?

Also known as "supply and demand". Hardly anyone is capable of running a company, which is why successful businesspeople are rich.
Yeah, I'm sure that everyone gets an equal chance to prove that they could run a company, in this fair and equal world.


The fact is, repiV, you still haven't backed up your comment, so I'll do this very slowly for you.

You claimed, by means of responding to Solaris's comment, that being an executive is more difficult than working in a sweatshop for 14 hours a day, at the age of 14.
here, once again, is that response - Original comment in italics, your comment in normal font, with the relevant words formatted in bold.

Because they work so much harder than those 14year old kids working 14hour days in sweatshops for less than a dollar.
Well, actually, yes they do. Although your snide comment has **** all relevance to anything, given that you're comparing developed economies with developing ones.

Still with me? Good.
Now, at this point, I call bullshit.
Over the page, we start talking about sales. While this argument takes up a lot, it is NOT relevant to my original call of bullshit. I am NOT, repeat, NOT, claiming working in sales is harder than working in a sweatshop, I am claiming that that working in a sweatshop is harder than being an executive.

now, I've asked you to back up your claim, which you have failed to do. So, I'll back up mine instead, with a few comparisons.

Nature of work:

• Executive - Based on decision making. Most likely helped by other executives, advisers and the like. Little physical effort it needed. Pay - very good. Working conditions - very good.
• Sweatshop - Based on constant, physical activity. No help received. Constant effort required for long hours (14 and above) pay - Terrible. Working conditions - Appalling.

Consequences of not getting something right:

• Executive - For small decisions, no negative consequences felt. For major decisions, possible financial consequences (Loss of share value, for instance) No risk of physical injury.
• Sweatshops - For minor mistakes - Physical abuse and punishment, possibly death. For major mistakes, Physical abuse and likely death.

 

[repiV]

If YOU didn't work, you'd be on benefits, and able to afford food. I have a choice not to work or not, because neither option will result in my DEATH, whereas working in a sweatshop is the only way to gain income.

No, I wouldn't get benefits for refusing to work when I am able to. I would only get benefits if I was actively looking for work, and any sane welfare system works in exactly the same way.
In any case, this is completely unrelated to sweatshops and everything to do with highly developed economies which can afford to support unproductive members of society for periods of time.

rolleyes: Yes, because it's exactly the same set of circumstances.
Do you think any child working in one of these shops actually has a choice? Or do they all happily toddle off to work 14 hours a day?

It's exactly the same comparison - you're blaming sweatshops when you should be blaming bad economic conditions.

Which adds what to your argument? Oh, wait, nothing.

It's a completely fundamental piece of the puzzle that you completely ignore. Without the sweatshops, they would be in an even worse position. This is not "exploitation", it's supply and demand. It works exactly the same way in the Western world.
Yes, I sympathise with their plight, but it's not the fault of companies outsourcing their labour. Outsourcing actually helps third world countries.

So, you haven't got anything to do with backing up your claim, and you're asking me to quit? You make me smile, I'll give you that.

What is this obsessions with "backing up my claim"? I made a comment as an off-the-cuff remark and you're jumping all over it like a lefty to climate change porn. It's not even important and you can't even accurately represent what I said in the first place.

No shit, you said executives had it harder. Try reading what I say. I've posted the damn quote several times, are you blind or just arrogant enough to ignore it?

No, I said they do a more challenging job. Which is entirely true.
Ever tried working in a bottom-of-the-barrel callcentre? They're not entirely dissimilar from sweatshops, but it doesn't make the work challenging.

Nice way to put child labor, 'assembling consumer goods' - do you think using euphemisms is going to make your argument any more valid?

Euphemisms? That's what the work is - assembling consumer goods. It's the most accurate and unbiased description there is. It's a brainless job which anyone can do.
Now, calling it "forced manual labour" - THAT's misrepresentation.

This affects how difficult it is...how?
Anyone can be given a gun and told to march over a ladder into a wall of machine guns, does that mean it's an easy thing to do?
Just because it's the only option does not make it easier. Can't you grasp that?

It being the only option is irrelevant. It's clearly the most desirable option available, otherwise sweatshops wouldn't be successful.
Are you a complete lunatic or did you really just compare being a soldier in World War I to working in a factory?
Read my lips: it's very easy to put things together in a factory. If it wasn't, they would be forced to pay more and be more selective about who they hire. It might be depressing and tedious, but it isn't difficult.

Yeah, I'm sure that everyone gets an equal chance to prove that they could run a company, in this fair and equal world.

They do. You could start one tomorrow if you wanted to.

Good luck with that.

The fact is, repiV, you still haven't backed up your comment, so I'll do this very slowly for you.

You claimed, by means of responding to Solaris's comment, that being an executive is more difficult than working in a sweatshop for 14 hours a day, at the age of 14.
here, once again, is that response - Original comment in italics, your comment in normal font, with the relevant words formatted in bold.

now, I've asked you to back up your claim, which you have failed to do. So, I'll back up mine instead, with a few comparisons.

Actually I've pointed out why and how being an executive is more difficult than being a production line monkey several times over.

Nature of work:
[/B]

• Executive - Based on decision making. Most likely helped by other executives, advisers and the like. Little physical effort it needed. Pay - very good. Working conditions - very good.
• Sweatshop - Based on constant, physical activity. No help received. Constant effort required for long hours (14 and above) pay - Terrible. Working conditions - Appalling.

Consequences of not getting something right:

• Executive - For small decisions, no negative consequences felt. For major decisions, possible financial consequences (Loss of share value, for instance) No risk of physical injury.
• Sweatshops - For minor mistakes - Physical abuse and punishment, possibly death. For major mistakes, Physical abuse and likely death.

What a load of bollocks. No negative consequences from bad decisions when you run a company? If you really screw it up, how about ending up on the streets, homeless and ruined?
I'd like to see your evidence that working in a sweatshop automatically entails physical abuse and "likely death". Complete bullshit.

 

[repiV]

So, what we can ascertain from this thread is that the way forward is using robot-child-forced-labour-bots?

Anyhow, I work in construction. And in 20 years time my role will be a very difficult one to hang onto. Not so much as robots, but the very, very rapid advancement of computer programs for structural calculations and 3D packages that can detail entire projects with only one operator are what threaten a bulk of the workforce.

These applications reduce the hours of input required by staff and lower fees, leaving room for nice profit and repeat business.

On the siteworks side of my industry, robots and machines are doubtful to replace manual labourers. Although, with the ridiculous health and safety epidemic sweeping through Britain it wouldn't surprise me if they replaced men with machines.

Price of progress, I suppose...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I personally don't feel good about Machines taking our work.

The Matrix, "I,Robot", etc. have all been done on behalf of research, fictional, or non-fictional novels, studies, and development with reguards to the rise of Artificial Intelligences, taking place over humanity.

It's very possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Renaissance

 

[tehsolace]

How economy will adjust as we gradually replace jobs with robots, just as we have been for the past 30 years now.

If our economy was doomed due to robots taking over certain jobs, then we'd already see the effects considering the decades we've already been using robots...

We won't wake up one morning with all of our jobs having been replaced with robots. It will happen over a period of many decades, and our economy will adjust just fine.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

perhaps a law will be made for limited use of said super machines.

 

[co05]

They do. You could start one tomorrow if you wanted to.

Good luck with that.

QFT

What a load of bollocks. No negative consequences from bad decisions when you run a company? If you really screw it up, how about ending up on the streets, homeless and ruined?

Or in jail getting your ass handed to you by a big, bald dude.



Anyhew, I have a video that's fairly on topic: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v343737c6dfyCb8?confirmed=1

They address the issue of sweatshops in other countries among other issues.

 

[co05]

perhaps a law will be made for limited use of said super machines.

It'd have to get pretty bad if a law needed to be passed. Methinks people will adapt, get smarter/more creative and find their niche. Hopefully it will make society smarter as a whole.

 

[theotherguy]

I would suggest reading asimov for anyone offset by frankensteinien nonsense about robots "taking over". Robots will work just like any other human appliance. People will buy them like they buy washing machines or assembly lines, and people will service them like those products as well.

There will be a time when all of our machines are fully automated, and it will be just another step in technology that will make our lives easier and fuller, and open up new applications for all of us.

I really want to get into the robotics industry. To me, robotics seems today to be what the computer industry was in the 1950s. We have a few more decades to go, but once we get all of the right technology and the right engineering in the right place, we're going to be seeing an explosion of a new industry with applications in almost all fields.

 

[15357]

I personally don't feel good about Machines taking our work.

The Matrix, "I,Robot", etc. have all been done on behalf of research, fictional, or non-fictional novels, studies, and development with reguards to the rise of Artificial Intelligences, taking place over humanity.

It's very possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Renaissance

Yeah.... TSR's Part 2 was ugh.....

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I would suggest reading asimov for anyone offset by frankensteinien nonsense about robots "taking over". Robots will work just like any other human appliance. People will buy them like they buy washing machines or assembly lines, and people will service them like those products as well.

There will be a time when all of our machines are fully automated, and it will be just another step in technology that will make our lives easier and fuller, and open up new applications for all of us.

I really want to get into the robotics industry. To me, robotics seems today to be what the computer industry was in the 1950s. We have a few more decades to go, but once we get all of the right technology and the right engineering in the right place, we're going to be seeing an explosion of a new industry with applications in almost all fields.

Check out ray Kurzweils "the age of siritual machines" as well robot lovers, its awesome.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Peak oil makes this discussion irrelevant. Yay peak oil.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Nuclear power makes the above statement irrelevant. Yay nuclear.

/meltdown OHSHI-

 

[falconwind]

we're not wealthier than our parents ..my dad supported a family of 5 on a single salary and was able to purchase a house/cars all on a labourers salary ...you're lucky if you can afford to rent an apartment/lease a car on that single salary today ..you need two working members of a household in order to afford a house

the gap is widening ..today's middle class is tommorrows lower class

I beleive the saying goes, 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.'

Wages have not kept up with the times. Anyone who says you can live a decent life (let alone above the poverty line) has obviously never tried to do so on minimum wage. Up here, it's $8.75/hr (last time I checked/depending on province) it should be closer to $10 I would say. And considerations should be made based on local living conditions.

But what about the machines... well, until we get real bonafide artificial intelligence, jobs will no doubt be shifted away from labour and more into 'desk jobs'. Aside from the acclimation period, which will no doubt be very hard on people, I think it might actually do the human race good.

Manpower, which would otherwise be squandered doing menial tasks like serving Big Macs and scrubbing toilets could be directed to more meaningful and productive tasks. I think there would be an increase in both scientific and artistic enrollment in schools. That of course touches another issue of tuitions being ridiculously expensive.

But assuming training is made available, we could have many more engineers creating new technologies. More doctors curing disease and illness. Scientists unravelling the mysteries of the universe. More teachers educating people. Progress would be sped up with the sheer amount of time and brains being put to a task.

And if nothing else, there will always be the need for technicians and programmers, people who keep the machines running.


This is, of course, a best case scenario. Which things rarely turn out to be. And I'm sure I'm glossing over the many factors that would prevent such an outcome.

But it sounds good.