Or, more likely, the supply and demand for apples is pretty much in equilibrium, in which case the more likely scenario is that with a 10% increase in per-worker productivity, the owner of the orchard fires 1 worker out of every 10.
"There's an implicit assumption there that there's a one-to-one replacement, and that the robots don't lead to new jobs."
It stands to reason, does it not? After all, a company is not going to buy a robot that's less efficient than the worker it replaces.
And yes, a worker might be needed to make the robot. But that's, say, ten man-days work for a set of workers to make a set of robots, and then five-ten man-YEARS of those robots replacing a given set of workers.
The end result is that there's less work for people to do, and there's definitely less work available for the unskilled workers the robots replaced.
"When the same number of workers can produce more goods there's more money, not less, to pay them."
Brilliant analysis, but missing a rather crucial point. Yes, there's more money with which to pay them, but are they actually doing so?
WalMart runs a highly efficient operation but is also notorious for paying extremely low wages. As a result, they're banking the money which could have gone to higher wages.
Apple is producing iPhones and iPads in China, under the most "efficient" conditions possible, but again, the money is not going to the workers. Instead, Apple is heading towards having $200 billion dollars in the bank, in cash.
So to restate your sentence correctly: Automation and producing goods where there is a comparative advantage to producing those goods are both increases in efficency which MAY lead to higher wages.
The fine for dumping trash near where I live is $1,000. That's a thousand dollars for throwing a trash bag out of you car. Is that egregious? Am I punishing the person I caught overly severely?
Or is the fine deliberately structured to make dumping trash not worth the risk? In all likelihood, you're not going to get caught. But is littering worth the possibility of paying $1,000?
If you go into a store and shoplift a CD and get caught, you can go to jail. Severe? Yes. Disproportionate? Perhaps. But it makes getting caught at shoplifting not worth the risk for most people.
Now, the "harm" caused to the store is, what, $10? So should the fine for shoplifting a CD equate to the actual harm? In which case, why wouldn't everyone try to shoplift everything? Best case, you get the CD for free, and worst case is that you pay what you would have paid in the first place.
So what's the answer? 2X? 3X? 10X 100X? At what point does the deterrence factor kick in?
You mean that $400 you took away in taxes in the first place and gave to someone at the studio, who spends part it on a hotel room that actually has costs and has to be provisioned? And then pockets the rest.
You do know what the term "profit" means, don't you?
If your sole incentive is to provide a stimulus, take the $400 and hand it directly to the hotel, cutting out the middleman. Better yet, let the taxpayers keep the $400 in the first place and THEY can spend it at local stores and restaurants.
This relates to the ban most hospitals have against recording visits and surgeries. Part of it is related to HIPA and patient privacy issues, but mostly it's about ensuring that there are no recordings of any mistakes a doctor might make being used against them in a lawsuit.
Of course, the flip side to this is a good recording could also save them from a malpractice lawsuit, but they don't see it that way.
Which tends to bring one to the viewpoint that most malpractice lawsuits are justified...
"And of course, the numbers are much bigger for younger people, meaning that those overall percentages are only likely to increase over time."
Or not. Younger people become older people, and older people tend to have more disposable income and less time, which means that you start paying for convenience (e.g. not scouring the internet looking for a good copy of a movie).
The "times 90" bit is absurd. If you're going go after people for downloading music, that's one thing. But those other 90 people? Go after them.
It would be like getting stopped for speeding and instead of getting a ticket for $100 you got one for $10,000 in order to pay for the other 100 speeders the officer failed to catch while he was dealing with you.
Re: Re: They clearly understand what can't be replaced.
Teenage Engineering is simply after some free press.
Anyone want to calculate the odds of some crude plastic part breaking on a piece of equipment that someone owns who just also happens to have access to a 3D printer, and who also understands how to disassemble and the repair the device in the first place?
"In this case, all it's serving to do is call significantly more attention to the original claims that Public Citizen made in its original letter to the FDA."
The key words here are: "In this case."
I would say that for every time we see the "Streisand Effect", dozens of such lawsuits are filed and won by default when the individual or company lacks the time or resources to defend itself and simply folds under the pressure.