GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer • Hacker News Board

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#121

Post by odessacubbage » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:05 AM UTC

tempsy wrote: post #4

I’m mostly positive about Andrew Yang but it’s frustrating to know he would point to something like this and scream “automation” when GM’s downsizing has more to do with outsourcing and a slowing market than anything remotely related to robots taking over jobs.

screaming automation doesn't bring up the specters of xenohpobia/nationalism etc. besides that, the image of robots taking all the jobs is evocative and easy for the average person with little to no understanding of economics to respond to.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#122

Post by MrGilbert » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 6:06 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #97

sarcher wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Henry Ford set minimum salaries, he wasn't impacting the wages of the engineers who designed the cars - he was impacting the wages of those who made less than $5 at the time the change was made. A minimum wage was being set, not an 'average' wage. So comparing a $5 minimum wage to the 'average wage today including white collar workers like line engineers' fails to be a convincing comparison. It's even less convi…

I think the 'more than one car per household' is a fair point but I think it gets watered down by the >1 car per driving adult...this may be just that we consume more, not need more. If that's the case, it implies vehicles are more accessible today, not less. But I stand by the assertion that claiming a $40k average wage is way off. The base salary of most Tier 1 non-skilled employees was still in the $70k-$80k range…

> It seems like MrGilbert was cherry picking the data.

I was not - I had to work with what I had, and I clearly stated at the beginning, that you have to take it with a grain of salt. However, I did not cherry pick any data. That‘s a false accusation.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#123

Post by Pywarrior » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 8:16 AM UTC

tbyehl wrote: post #66

Pywarrior wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you didn't buy a truck, you bought a tall unibody car with a bed. It has vastly less utility than a frame based truck/suv. If you are happy that's great and ultimately that is all that matters, but to compare ridgeline to silverado or f-150 is just plain wrong, apples and oranges.

Not a Ridgeline owner, but... the reality of pickup ownership in America is that on average they never get used for things that couldn't be done with a wagon or small SUV. Which makes the Ridgeline the best truck out there for most people who buy pickups -- the in-bed storage is super practical, the flat floor provides more usable space in the bed, towing capacity is reasonable for a U-haul / smaller boat / motorcycl…

I can't disagree with you but I'd still like to respect the definition of 'truck'. It has a specific meaning within the car world.

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#124

Post by bumby » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

MrGilbert wrote: post #122

bumby wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 'more than one car per household' is a fair point but I think it gets watered down by the >1 car per driving adult...this may be just that we consume more, not need more. If that's the case, it implies vehicles are more accessible today, not less. But I stand by the assertion that claiming a $40k average wage is way off. The base salary of most Tier 1 non-skilled employees was still in the $70k-$80k range…

> It seems like MrGilbert was cherry picking the data. I was not - I had to work with what I had, and I clearly stated at the beginning, that you have to take it with a grain of salt. However, I did not cherry pick any data. That‘s a false accusation.

Sorry, from my perspective it seemed like you took the lower end of that $34k-144k because it fit your point. At the very least, I would have thought the average would have been a fairer assumption. Chalk my mistake up to the limited information communicated in a forum format

Re: GM Is Now Detroit’s Smallest Auto-Making Employer

#125

Post by bumby » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #120

bumby wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I follow your point, but I'm not sure the research or my personal experience proves that to be true. In some cases, automation leads to net job growth (e.g., there are more bank tellers now than before the invention of ATMs), but I think that is the exception rather than the rule. Especially in manufacturing, automation absolutely guts jobs. A line that was run by dozens can be run by a just a couple. The balance is…

The point isn't that all markets work like that, it's that it can, in a way that outsourcing can't. Even if outsourcing results in lower prices which increase demand, the additional jobs then go to the country the jobs were outsourced to, not to the original country. You're also looking at the overall market rather than a single company or country. If you automate before your competitors, the result is that you can p…

I'm following your point, but it's more of a "lesser of two evils" arguement than saying automation creates net job growth. Its not even growth its just lessened job loss.

As the efficiency continues to improve, if demand doesn't follow suit the will be an inevitable job loss. The factories I witnessed automation come in did not ever bring those lost jobs back. Sure, in the short term the displaced workers were sometimes moved to a different plant, but those jobs are almost certainly getting automated in the future too.