Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Oh How the Left Loves to Hide Anti-Rich Propaganda...

You know why (well, one of the many reasons) the left teams up against the rich? It isn't just the jealousy, or the pure envy, but a mixture of those emotions and the fact that there are so few rich to compared to the amount of non-rich that exist.

Frankly, there is a bullying element in it.

But regardless, the left will stop at nothing to incorporate the "we hate the evil, stinking, filthy rich" feeling into everything they do. It feels too good not to. Those who pride themselves on "social" everything love banding together in groups (hello unions) in order to facilitate a change.

Why did I bring this up? Well, it's because I wanted to discuss the article titled, "After Your Job is Gone." - (

It's a tech article warning readers about how advanced technology and robots will ultimately cause people to lose their jobs. It even hints at the reality of a 0% employment society. Of course, there is a LOT of class warfare incorporated, as expected, and the article itself is off base and relatively full of clueless assertions.

How did I even find this article? A friend of mine posted it to my Facebook and wanted to know what I thought. It spawned a full-blown rebuttal, and I've decided to post it below. Chime in, and let me know what you think (yes, it's copied/pasted directly off of my Facebook, but it does amount to an actual written rebuttal and full synopsis of my feelings and response to the tech article):

--- My Rebuttal ---

Tis a very interesting article... In all honesty, this is a social, "hey there, you vast majority of non-rich people… let's hate on the rich some more" article masked in a technology rant in an attempt to lend it some credibility to the rich-hating fury because the author doesn't come right out and say, "the rich suck; they're ruining the world."

Before anyone says, "there goes Mike writing this off as rank liberalism," my simple preemptive response would be, "read his article, then read response." (not saying, of course, that you, [name hidden], would say this... but anyone in general).

There are three notions here that stand out, quite vividly, and they're all unique and unrelated, in this article. They're inserted in the article as either a pseudo-mask of the author's real intent as I said, or as a complete ignorance to how the economy works, technology and "robots" aside.

The first is the notion of the non-rich vs. the rich. For example, within the article we see, albeit a quotation, “Simply put, while the ultra-rich are getting richer, record numbers of Silicon Valley residents are slipping into poverty.” To start, why does this even make it into an article about technology rendering many, many jobs obsolete? This talk of the “rich” is plastered throughout the article, and it absolutely shows this is really about my original feeling that the article is about social “justice” more than anything. But look further:

“Tech has brought very young, very rich people to the Bay Area like never before. And the changes to our cultural and economic landscape aren’t necessarily for the better.”


“If this scenario plays out, the world will divide into a dwindling minority of the very rich — tech workers, finance barons, and those who inherited their wealth, mostly — living in a handful of idyllic cities dripping with wealth, and/or their summer homes on nearby beaches, lakes, and mountains … and the majority who barely get by, doing occasional contract work or odd jobs for a little extra money, too poor to even visit the places where the rich live, work, and play. Aside from those few with government jobs, there’ll be hardly any middle class at all between those two groups.”

Oh really? Yawn? I hate to repeat, but what does this have to do with anything? These are wonderful assertions, but they’re completely devoid of any economic understanding whatsoever. (Just a quick side-rebut to entertain these ridiculous assertions… who would service any of the needs of these so called “very rich?” Do you think they’d grow their own food, build their own homes, produce their own washers and driers, and screw the bolts into the sheet metal of their own cars? Hogwash…). Good luck, to the author, to show that his very-rich-would-live-in-their-own-isolated-society nightmare would ever really exist. For me, I’ll stick to reality and economic truth over trying to scare the populace about the pitfalls of how some rich folks might, albeit incorrectly, live.

Moving on, as I said, why do these notions of rich vs poor make it into a tech article about the advancement of technology eliminating jobs? Hmmm is all I really have to say about that. Lastly, on this notion (there is a LOT to say about this part, but I don’t have all day to write), the fact that the author has the stones to call out “right wingers” as in this pejorative… come on. Tipping the hand much?

The second major notion is that the author, perhaps intentionally to prove his point, (though it shamelessly leaves his article open to ridicule), does not mention, at all, how technological advancements have created many, many jobs, even as it eliminated others, while ultimately (again, why is this in here), creating wealth for all.

It is this second notion, as it is simple to utilize, that makes the author’s article look silly: technology has advanced throughout history. Duh! But what does that mean? Have jobs gone away and, most importantly, as the author would like to assert, stayed away? Absolutely not! For the author’s inference that technology will eliminate jobs AND keep them eliminated to be true, we’d have to believe that technological advancements just started, well, now. We’d have to believe that technology has not advanced up until this point? Why? Because, quite simply, according to the author, if technology did advance for the past oh, 1,000 years, we wouldn’t have any jobs today. He tries to rectify this fallacy with, “Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades.” Come on, really? You mean the 63.5% employment participation late is as low as it is (yes, this is a trough) because of, oh boy, technology is eliminating more jobs than it’s creating? It has nothing to do with a recession, and a government hell-bent on pushing people towards dependency for the sake of holding power? To me, the fact that the author even inserted the aforementioned line about employment participation rate, as if we’re all stupid, kills his credibility, and my position that technology simply changes the nature of employment instead of eliminates it holds absolutely true.

But let’s look further at this notion of “technology is having a net-negative effect on jobs” joke of a position. The fact is, technology has advanced over time, and it has made more jobs and wealth each and every time it has. For example, is anyone complaining that one can overnight a package from New York City to Los Angeles? Is it a shame that the Pony Express was replaced, through the years, by advanced technology, leading to where we are now with the shipping services we have? Nope. Oh, that poor Pony Express employee. Did anyone cry for him? Probably not. But where are we now? Yes, shipping services are technology-based services, employing the tools of technology, but, with respect to employment, giving people jobs. Where there once was a mail guy, a stamp guy, a pony-rider, there is a sorter, a tech support, a pilot, an airplane mechanic, a delivery guy... well, you get the point.

This is just one example of many. Take record players and recording devices, too. Prior to their existence, there was nothing with respect to jobs in these fields. Well, maybe the printing press would be “in this field,” but the phonograph, e.g. a new technology, came along, and not only bettered people’s lives, but created a new set of skills to learn and jobs to have. But when technology pushed phonographs out the door (and further pocket tape recorders paving the way for digital recorders), did anyone complain about those jobs being lost? Nope. Again, new technology bred new jobs, new specialties, and new levels of wealth. The only thing that hinders economic growth is government interference into the market. Period. For example, ever notice there are more and more automatic checkouts at grocery stores? Why? Is it a result of technology? Kind of… but it’s more the result of the government increasing minimum wage which would force employers to hire low skilled workers (cashiers) at a higher wage than they are worth. Retailers have cut down on these jobs (hello extremely high teen unemployment rate) and replaced them with machines because it simply cuts down on cost, insurance, etc. This leads to low-skilled employee candidates not getting hired at all and not having the opportunity to learn skills, earn a wage, and progress over time. Instead, the government, in an appearance that it is helping people (of course, in exchange for a vote), enforces a minimum wage that, as I’ve explained, has led to more technology being inserted in this space (there are many, many examples of this). Again, it has little to do with technology. Technology is the mechanism of demand, not a hindrance of it.

For these effects, I could go on and on all day. Regardless, no matter the amount of “machines” or technology or “robots” that come along, the jobs will simply evolve, specialties will develop, and people will be employed directly in using these tools or indirectly by working in a field parallel (repair, upkeep, development) of them. Besides, who makes, designs, welds, molds, installs, etc. the “robots?” The author failed to mention this parallel employment I have described. Jobs will change, not be eliminated, by technology.

Lastly, on this notion, and it’s a silly one… there are things that, most likely, could never be replaced with robots or machines. Would you go watch a Skins game played and ref’d by robots? Doubtful. While pro sports is a fun example of this, there are other more “solid” examples to look at.

The last notion that completely makes the author’s article nothing but mush is the fact that it ignores simple economic principles. Basically, we, as a society, create demand… the demand for technology, goods, services, etc. Every robot, technology, or machine that has been made was the result of the demand for its creation.

Take the example of the phonograph. Someone had to make that device. It didn’t make itself. Because the demand had existed for a phonograph, it was created by someone who wanted to supply it. It’s economics 101. Someone decided, “gee, people want this, and I can make money making it.” If that principle didn’t exist, no one would produce it. Now when cassette tape recorders came along, somewhere down the road, the produce/supplier of those had the same idea. The same goes for the maker of the automatic checkout systems seen at grocery stores. Why do all these exist? Is it because the rich want to get richer and push the poor out of the way? Not really. Is it because we want to eliminate peoples’ jobs with robots? Ha! Man wants to created wealth for himself, plain and simple, and the only way he can do it is by selling to someone something that the buyer wants. That’s it. Automatic checkout machines don’t breed themselves; they’re made because someone wants them, and someone wants to make them. For technology, the simple fact that production costs exist in the realm of supplying things is the reason technology goes on. People are always looking for a way to build the better mousetrap (not only in quality but in more efficiently production-wise; duh… it lowers costs and increases wealth), and for that simple cause-effect proposition, the better mousetrap will be made. Will it cause the original maker of the mousetrap to lose his job (or the loss of the whole business in general)? Sure. But he’ll move on and find a different type of job, as I have said. Will a new technology be employed in the production of the machines that make the mousetraps, in the jobs of people that draw up the designs for them… in the operators of the machines, and on and on? Absolutely. This is the way the world has worked since the beginning of time, and unlike what the author says, this is the way it will keep on working so long as we do not let power (government interference step in and destroy it).

So yes, to me, this article is nothing but a social article, trying to mask something gitchy like “technology and robots will take all your jobs” over “let’s hate the rich; they are really, really bad.” This tends to be the way of the left, sadly, and, like any of these, “look at this cause I take, give me attention because I want to look like I care about things” articles, do you notice, as is usually the case, there is no mention of a solution? Perhaps, it’s because there really isn’t a problem… just a manufactured issue to “care” about, warning people that those evil rich are doing it again, and the only way to stop it is to… well, hand over a little more power to control things to those who request it. Granted, the article does not yet say that, (again, no solution is mentioned), but this article wreaks of it, and it’s right up in our faces for us to take a big whiff.


  1. Hi LME,

    Touche' on your analysis of this 'article.' The 'right-winger' jab says it all. This guy is actively pushing, at the very least - a purely socialist agenda. Government will take care of you - and those 'evil' rich MUST pay for it.

    Unfortunately, this administration looks to be working to that (totally)unsustainable end with welfare, food stamps, disability, etc.

    This 'writer' is merely echoing Zero's excuse for the poor job market. 'ATM's and kiosks took your job.' they scream - instead of examining the REAL problem of government, cronyism, over-regulation and intervention stifling private entrepreneurship.

    Today is my 59th (hold applause please :)... old enough to remember the 'olden days' before all this 'new fangled' technology.

    I was also raised by my grandmother - who remembered the days before that. This was a woman who actually traveled around in a covered wagon, who - in her own lifetime - saw the implementation of commercial air travel.

    I remember black and white t.v. We had THREE stations that signed off at midnight - with a picture of the flag and the National Anthem.

    I owned a transistor radio (AM only). Our telephone had a dial - and a party line. You had to contact an operator to make a long distance call.

    Our cars were NOT equipped with seat belts (and Nevada had NO posted speed limit on the state highways).

    I was subjected to the first 'computer' designed to accommodate hotel/restaurant booking and billing - owned and operated by Caesar's Palace in Vegas. It occupied ONE ENTIRE FLOOR of the main building, and CRASHED repeatedly, especially on Sunday mornings - our busiest check-out time.

    As to why the writer offers no solution, that's because there IS NO problem. His premise is to invent a crisis - to facilitate MORE government intervention.

    Technology has been around since man first harnessed fire/invented the wheel. As every action has an equal but opposite re-action, more technology creates a need for more workers, for further invention.

    American ARE resourceful creatures - IF the government GETS OUT OF THE WAY.

  2. p.s. As for robots tending bar? Computer controlled pour has been tried - and due to technical problems - has failed miserably.

    As a career bartender - and occasional patron... IMO robot tenders/servers will NEVER catch fire in the real-world local bar scene. Maybe in bigger techie places (east and west coasts)?

    In my experience - REAL customers require/demand real (warm body) HUMAN contact... You know, someone to talk/complain/commiserated with : ) (just my take)