Is industrial capitalism done for in the United States?

[Senator Snowstalker]

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

[Beet]

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

Actually, the advent of 3D printing may actually increase the proportion of unskilled labor in manufacturing, by allowing anyone or even little children to manufacture things at the click of a button.

[The Mikado]

Beet, since you seem to know something about it, could you explain 3D Printing in a way that isn't just "miracle device out of Star Trek that can fabricate objects out of sawdust?"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

Actually, the advent of 3D printing may actually increase the proportion of unskilled labor in manufacturing, by allowing anyone or even little children to manufacture things at the click of a button.

Technology certainly isn't increasing the number of jobs in the US. More profits does not equal more jobs. Verizon is sitting on $10 billion, and they laid off 40,000  people in the last few years.

[dead0man]

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

Actually, the advent of 3D printing may actually increase the proportion of unskilled labor in manufacturing, by allowing anyone or even little children to manufacture things at the click of a button.

Technology certainly isn't increasing the number of jobs in the US. More profits does not equal more jobs. Verizon is sitting on $10 billion, and they laid off 40,000  people in the last few years.

Indeed, technology advances usually mean more efficiency and fewer jobs.  Still better than the alternative.

[Beet]

Beet, since you seem to know something about it, could you explain 3D Printing in a way that isn't just "miracle device out of Star Trek that can fabricate objects out of sawdust?"

There are numerous different advanced manufacturing techniques all being grouped under the category "3D Printing", the common element being that they are all what is now called "additive manufacturing techniques." Traditionally manufacturing is subtractive, meaning that parts are created the way a sculpture is, by taking a chunk of the base material and then cutting away parts of it in a process known as machining. Additive manufacturing techniques use only the amount of base material that will actually be in the final product, building it up piece by piece. The advantage of additive manufacturing is that it is much quicker to change the design, which is why it has been used for decades for rapid prototyping. The disadvantage now and ever is that it's not efficient for producing large quantities (>a few thousand).

What's happening now is that the quality of rapid prototyping is improving and the cost is coming down to where it's starting to approach the consumer level (but not yet). I would say consumer 3D Printing is where the PC industry was in the mid-1970s. The cost-benefit is low enough for enthusiasts and hobbyists to adopt, but not worthwhile (yet) for the general public.

The main limitation of the current consumer models, IMO, is the limited material they can use (only plastic). Essentially it's a chemistry limitation. Current consumer models all use a variant of fused deposition modelling, which is where the raw material (filament) is fed into a nozzle by a motor. The nozzle is heated to melt the filament as a very thin layer of it (usually between .01 and .1 mm) extrudes out from the nozzle, and settles onto the surface of the base. At the same time stepper motors are used to move the nozzle around rapidly, creating a "layer" of object. Then, the base is lowered by .01 to .1 mm and the process is repeated again, creating the next layer. The material is typically a plastic and comes out as the same plastic that are used in Lego sets. But since only plastic can be used (due to it's melting point properties, can't be too high) you can't use these devices to print circuit boards, glass, rubber, wood, etc. So obviously their utility is very limited. Further, they're usually monochromatic or bichromatic. The current models run at about $1300-$1700. Until some of these big limitations are overcome and the cost comes down under $500, you won't see this become a household item. But given the progress that has been made in the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if these problems were indeed overcome. Other types of 3D Printing, such as laser sintering, can definitely print metals.   

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

Actually, the advent of 3D printing may actually increase the proportion of unskilled labor in manufacturing, by allowing anyone or even little children to manufacture things at the click of a button.

Technology certainly isn't increasing the number of jobs in the US. More profits does not equal more jobs. Verizon is sitting on $10 billion, and they laid off 40,000  people in the last few years.

Indeed, technology advances usually mean more efficiency and fewer jobs.  Still better than the alternative.

That really isn't true; I mean, are there more jobs now, or were there in 1800?

In theory, technology is supposed to lower costs, which increases demand. As demand increases, then jobs are created to fill that demand.

What's happening now is a bit more complex. It's a part of the overall increased stratification of the world between haves and have-nots. Only in this case the "haves" are the select few with the engineering, computer, energy and medical skills that are in demand, while the "have nots" are everyone else.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Beet, since you seem to know something about it, could you explain 3D Printing in a way that isn't just "miracle device out of Star Trek that can fabricate objects out of sawdust?"

There are numerous different advanced manufacturing techniques all being grouped under the category "3D Printing", the common element being that they are all what is now called "additive manufacturing techniques." Traditionally manufacturing is subtractive, meaning that parts are created the way a sculpture is, by taking a chunk of the base material and then cutting away parts of it in a process known as machining. Additive manufacturing techniques use only the amount of base material that will actually be in the final product, building it up piece by piece. The advantage of additive manufacturing is that it is much quicker to change the design, which is why it has been used for decades for rapid prototyping. The disadvantage now and ever is that it's not efficient for producing large quantities (>a few thousand).

What's happening now is that the quality of rapid prototyping is improving and the cost is coming down to where it's starting to approach the consumer level (but not yet). I would say consumer 3D Printing is where the PC industry was in the mid-1970s. The cost-benefit is low enough for enthusiasts and hobbyists to adopt, but not worthwhile (yet) for the general public.

The main limitation of the current consumer models, IMO, is the limited material they can use (only plastic). Essentially it's a chemistry limitation. Current consumer models all use a variant of fused deposition modelling, which is where the raw material (filament) is fed into a nozzle by a motor. The nozzle is heated to melt the filament as a very thin layer of it (usually between .01 and .1 mm) extrudes out from the nozzle, and settles onto the surface of the base. At the same time stepper motors are used to move the nozzle around rapidly, creating a "layer" of object. Then, the base is lowered by .01 to .1 mm and the process is repeated again, creating the next layer. The material is typically a plastic and comes out as the same plastic that are used in Lego sets. But since only plastic can be used (due to it's melting point properties, can't be too high) you can't use these devices to print circuit boards, glass, rubber, wood, etc. So obviously their utility is very limited. Further, they're usually monochromatic or bichromatic. The current models run at about $1300-$1700. Until some of these big limitations are overcome and the cost comes down under $500, you won't see this become a household item. But given the progress that has been made in the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if these problems were indeed overcome. Other types of 3D Printing, such as laser sintering, can definitely print metals.   

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

Actually, the advent of 3D printing may actually increase the proportion of unskilled labor in manufacturing, by allowing anyone or even little children to manufacture things at the click of a button.

Technology certainly isn't increasing the number of jobs in the US. More profits does not equal more jobs. Verizon is sitting on $10 billion, and they laid off 40,000  people in the last few years.

Indeed, technology advances usually mean more efficiency and fewer jobs.  Still better than the alternative.

That really isn't true; I mean, are there more jobs now, or were there in 1800?

In theory, technology is supposed to lower costs, which increases demand. As demand increases, then jobs are created to fill that demand.

What's happening now is a bit more complex. It's a part of the overall increased stratification of the world between haves and have-nots. Only in this case the "haves" are the select few with the engineering, computer, energy and medical skills that are in demand, while the "have nots" are everyone else.

Lots of engineering jobs have been lost in recent years. Those people aren't exactly haves any more.

[Simfan34]

Industrial capitalism is the only path to mass prosperity. Will explain when free.

[dead0man]

Indeed, technology advances usually mean more efficiency and fewer jobs.  Still better than the alternative.

That really isn't true; I mean, are there more jobs now, or were there in 1800?

In theory, technology is supposed to lower costs, which increases demand. As demand increases, then jobs are created to fill that demand.

What's happening now is a bit more complex. It's a part of the overall increased stratification of the world between haves and have-nots. Only in this case the "haves" are the select few with the engineering, computer, energy and medical skills that are in demand, while the "have nots" are everyone else.

I should have added something about "in a specific industry, more efficiency means fewer jobs".  Obviously there are "more jobs" now than 200 years ago, but it takes a lot less people to make, say, a shirt now than then.  Just like it takes fewer people to make a car now than it did thirty years ago.  We have less factory work now but we make more than we ever have.  This is a good thing because factory work sucks.  Granted, if you arn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and don't mind working in a loud, dangerous place pushing the same button over and over again for thirty years it kind of sucks for you, but for the rest of us it's better because our lawn mowers are cheaper.  Sure, unloading trucks at Sears doesn't pay as much as putting fenders on Fords did in 1979, but it was pretty stupid of us to pay Johnny High School dropout more than we paid Mrs. Englishteacher.

But to your point, yes, it is better to be in medicine or technology.  Everybody knows this.  My school counselors in the late 80s knew this.  If you want to make money, you go into fields that make money.  If you want to do what you love, you can probably survive doing that, but you're not going to make as much as the guy that went to trade school to learn HVAC work and why should you?  Few people dream of being and HVAC guy when they grow up, but it's something that is obviously needed.  If you do something nobody wants to do, you'll get paid more, that's how it works.  Nothing is stopping people from going to their local community college or trade school and learning a needed trade, in fact, it's actually pretty easy, even if you're flat broke.

[perdedor]

You are underestimating the ruthlessness of the American owning class. If desktop manufacturing ever so much as looked like it could realistically replace heavy industry as the driving force for production in our economy the threatened elements of the owning class would utilize their limitless capital to rid themselves of the problem (essentially what happened to electric cars in the 90s).

Your society could only exist after the destruction of the owning class, but is unrealistic as a means of riddance. Interesting idea though, I assume your model's ultimate end is anarchic in nature?

[dead0man]

People still think "big business" killed the electric car?  How quaint.

[opebo]

People still think "big business" killed the electric car?  How quaint.

Rather beside the point, too, considering the millions upon millions of americans they have killed and continue to kill every year. enormity of their actual crimes offenses.

Note to moderators:

I edited the above post because, though I think it is a standard and accepted tenet of Marxist thought that 'big business' does in fact cause the deaths of working class people, I was afraid it might be in spite of this be considered 'excessive hyperbole'.  Finally I also thought that 'crimes' might be a bit too strong, as in fact what they do is perfectly legal - instead I used 'offenses' in the sense that what they do offends (or harms) their class-victims or may be perceived as having done so.

Is there any way I could get some friendly and helpful feed-back (sans death points) on whether my thinking is correct here?

[perdedor]

People still think "big business" killed the electric car?  How quaint.

I suppose you are about to tell me that it's was the omnipotent will of the free market that killed the EV1? I suppose the multi-million dollar lobbying campaign and patent buy outs by big oil was merely coincidental and also The Hand's will?

[dead0man]

You might have a point if the electric car was dead, it's not.  I can't wait until they get all the wrinkles out and the price down as I'd love to have the instant power electric motors give.  The biggest issue is the less than adequate battery.  Figure that one out and you'll be a trijazillionare.  My money (if I had any) would be on the super capacitor.