I heard they were going to automate away two of those three crew, but the lefties complained about the loss of jobs, so they kept them and added three more.

That's what I did, I got a 10 inch tablet but dragging the damn thing around with me all the time got tiring. So I got a bag for it only to discover that my 13 inch MacBook fit into the same bag and was only marginally heavier so why bother with a 10 inch tablet? And besides having a 4-5 inch phone, a 10 inch tablet and a laptop is expensive. A 10 inch tablet won't fit into any pocket while the iPad Mini, for example is on the verge of being to large for stuffing into all but the largest pockets and it can't make phone calls. Some of the smaller Samsung tablets can double as phones but I don't like them. I'm going to get an iPhone 6+ phablet that will fit into my pocket and leave the laptop at home when I don't need it. A 6 inch phone is too big and uncomfortable to fit into a trouser pocket but it is still small enough that it will fit into a sweatshirt or coat pocket.

Yeah, because refusing to work with a compatbile chip that's been operating critical hardware in my business for years is so much better.

Have you heard of this new-fangled thing called 'The Internet'?

That makes no sense.

Look at it from a macro-economic perspective: The reason we're moving to automation is because it increases efficiency, allowing us to produce more goods with fewer resources. That will increase average standard of living.

There are a couple of ways it could go wrong, of course. One is that the increased efficiency and therefore increased wealth could end up concentrated in the hands a small percentage of super-wealthy people. We've actually seen a lot of this over the last few decades, but we've seen it previously during other technology-driven economic restructurings as well, and what always happens is that competition eventually drives the margins of the super successful down and in the end the wealth ends up getting spread more broadly.

That points to the other way it could go wrong: The common man only gets his share of the increased wealth by doing something to earn it. Even though increased efficiency means there's more to go around, barring some sort of large scale government-driven redistribution, you still have to work for your share of it... which means you have to be able to do something that others who have wealth consider of sufficient value to pay you. So the other way it could go wrong is that there may simply be nothing available for such people to do.

That last is also a risk we've seen bandied about in past economic shifts, especially the shift from agricultural to industrial labor. What has happened in the past is that we've created new kinds of jobs doing previously unheard-of or even previously-frivolous things. I don't see any reason that this time should be different. I expect the transition to be painful -- and the faster it happens the more painful it will be -- but I don't think there's any end to what people want. People with resources will always want things that people without resources can supply. I don't claim to have any idea what those things will be.

It's also possible that I'm wrong, and that we'll have to take a socialistic approach to distributing the fruits of automation-driven productivity increases. I don't think so, and I think we should be careful not to move that direction too quickly, because it has huge negative impacts on productivity and we're going to need all of the productivity increases we can get, but it is possible.

Why would a company automate away a $2/hour job if a machine to do the same thing costs $100,000 a year?

You do realize that people aren't, you know, actually, like, supposed to be able to support themselves with the lowest-paid jobs in the country? These are the kind of jobs that used to be done by kids still living at home, not those who expected to make a career and raise a family by saying 'Do you want fries with that?' a thousand times a day?

Exactly. There's no way the Democrats can lose by demanding a minimum wage increase:

1. If people aren't laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more wage increases.
2. If they are laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more welfare payments.

It's a win-win in the short term, even though it's disastrous for the economy in the long term.

Obamacare has increased the cost of employing people, the usual suspects have been demanding that McDonalds' pay their workers more, and it's clear that the Democrats are going to keep demanding that the government force low-skilled workers out of work... sorry, increase the minimum wage. Any company not looking at automating away low-skilled and unskilled jobs at this point is just silly.

And why, exactly, do you think any of those rich individuals and corporations would remain in America, when you're forcing them to work just so you can steal their money and give it to the people who don't?

Oh, you're planning to build a wall along the border to keep your slaves in the Gulag, right? And require exit visas to leave on a plane?

You and all the other 'guaranteed income' nutters are simply insane.

The fact is that it's going to happen regardless of where minimum wages are set, or even if there are legally-mandated minimum wages (as opposed to the market-determined real minimum wages). Anyone who thinks most unskilled jobs aren't going away is crazy. The question is at what rate this change will occur, and it seems quite clear that high minimum wages will make more automation economical sooner, pushing the rate of change.

We're edging towards a major economic restructuring driven by widespread automation. We've had automation-driven restructurings in the past, and dealt with them, and this too will be handled. But when you're talking about widespread elimination of old jobs and creation of new jobs, speed kills. Retraining, and even just adjusting to the new reality, take time, and in the meantime millions upon millions of displaced workers are a huge drain on the economy, not to mention miserable.

I think it's pretty clear that high minimum wages are a forcing function for this transition, and I don't think it's something we really want to force. Ideally, it would be better to slow it down, at least in terms of the human cost, though the most obvious mechanisms for slowing it (labor subsidies) may also dangerously distort the economy.

Ebola is not highly communicable. It's more communicable than, say, HIV, but it's still pretty low on the communicability scale, and even lower if you're asymptomatic.

I think you mean to say 'the insane thing to do'.

Yeah, you're right. Why would a company which employs millions of low-skilled workers want to get rid of them just because the government demands they pay them more and has set interest rates near zero so borrowing for capital investment is nearly interest-free?

Totally makes no sense to anyone but EVIL RIGHT-WINGERS.

In my fantasy world, you wouldn't defend a corporation for damaging people's hardware.