The BLS links I provided at the bottom of that post certainly did. Did you
miss that?

I seldom follow links provided in a post unless the only message is "check this
link." Beyond that, I expect that most of the important facts have been
presented in the main body of the argument.
No, I didn't follow the link.


Put whatever spin you want on it but I stand by my previous statement and the
facts I
presented.



I don't think anybody is disputing your facts. Just the interpretation.


I see you use the disclaimer *recent* when looking at history. Interesting.

What happens tomorrow is probably going to be a whole lot more like what
happened last week or last year than what happened
50, 100, or 1000 years ago. Yeah.


Automation has reduced the number of workers needed to do a job.
Productivity has
increased as a result of it.

We agree. (We disagree that increassed productivity always leads to the
creation of new jobs.)

Menial jobs have been replaced by robots and PC's. Many have also gone
overseas. You
have to be educated and offer a skill to survive in todays job market.

......and your edcated, skillful, job increasingly *must* include some element
that requires your physical presence in a specific location. It's not just the
widget welding jobs that are going offshore these days. Hardworking people with
5-6 years of
college and technical skills are losing jobs to competing workers in South
America, India, the Phillipines, the former Soviet Union, etc. If you can
"tele-commute" to your job from Cul-de-sac Acres, some other guy can
"tele-commute" from Bangkok. While he could live about as well as you can on
about 20% of your salary, your company will only pay him about 10%. Bummer.

The days of the
high school graduate working on an assembly line and making the same money as
a college
educated teacher or engineer are numbered.

Most assembly line workers make more than most teachers. :-)


Like it or not automation is here to stay. And it is not a bad thing. Get
with the
times or get passed over.

Once again, we don't disagree. But, how does this increasing automation,
resulting in more productivity per employee, bring about increasing numbers of
jobs? Automation is embraced by industry because it *decreases* payroll
expense.



"We could automate widget packaging. The machine would cost $300,000."

"We really shouldn't spend $300,000 this quarter."

"We can eliminate 4 employees in the packing department, and with benefits
considered we'll save almost $200k in the next 12 months. That's a fairly
decent return on investment."

"Sold!"

That's reality, 101.

No, that is negative thinking and speculation 101.



The productivity rate increased to 5.7%, almost twice the annual average
of
2.8% from
'96 to '02.

Could it be some of the remaining workers are so frightened for their jobs
they
are working a few hours "off the clock'?

Again, negative thinking and conjecture.

I would hate to live in your negative world Chuck.

(You know, there used to be a guy posting here as "Dennis Compton" who would
accuse anybody not beating the pro-Bush conservative drum as a negative
thinker.
You couldn't possibly be the same guy, since after a short period of time every
one of his posts was nothing but personal attack from end to end. Poor dude had
to be one frustrated Jose about the time he disappeared.)