Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Even the numbers in that article don’t give very much credibility to your argument.
140 workers making $5/day is $700, meaning the labour cost per vehicle at 1000 vehicles/day is $0.70/vehicle compared to $7/vehicle for 100 vehicles/day pre-automation. Yet your position is that this $6.30/vehicle in savings led to vehicle prices falling from the introductory rate of $850/car to $260/car.
I think you should take into consideration a number of other socioeconomic changes from that era which likely factored into why the price drop was a sensible business decision, as opposed to a direct result of automation. Workers in general were starting to earn more money which lead to a larger market. You make a lot more money if you can sell 1000 units at a $50 profit each than you do selling 10 units at a $500 profit each because too few people can afford them at that price point.
If you’re so certain of yours and BoLevi’s trickledown inspired argument that automation leads to price decreases, one would think that given how much labour automation has accelerated in the past decade you wouldn’t have to go back over a century for an example that still doesn’t make a winning argument.
Automation is intended to lower costs for the business, not the consumer.
|
Give me just one example you say,
I give you one example after spending 10 seconds of googling
That example is too old give me another one.
Why would I continue this?
In your last sentence you agreed with my position anyway.
Automation creates a surplus.