'Shark Tank' Inventor Loses Big to 'Buy American' Fallacy

[Henry Rogue]

Oh and I also wanted to say that i don't know if any tellers lost their jobs to ATMs. None have in my town, I see the same Tellers I always have.

[Tpoints]

Oh and I also wanted to say that i don't know if any tellers lost their jobs to ATMs. None have in my town, I see the same Tellers I always have.

Your town once had no ATM machines?

[Henry Rogue]

Your town once had no ATM machines?

Ha, yes, of course and it use to have pay phones booths. Those were replaced by cell phones. I don't know how many jobs were lost to pay phone manufacturing or repair or collecting the change, but there sure were a lot of jobs created by the cell phone industry. My wife works in that industry.Oh and we had less banks back then too.

[Tpoints]

Ha, yes, of course and it use to have pay phones booths. Those were replaced by cell phones. I don't know how many jobs were lost to pay phone manufacturing or repair or collecting the change, but there sure were a lot of jobs created by the cell phone industry. My wife works in that industry.

Cell phones are not an "automation" to pay phone booths. People today with cellphones do not use their cellphones every time they would have used a pay phone. Doing so would require pay phones to be at every intersection, or people only using them at locations where there were phone booths. We both know that doesn't happen.

Yes, there are lots of jobs created by the cellphone industry, they have to do with repair, replacement, customer service, billing and contracts. These jobs are not much different than home phone landline related jobs, the only difference is selling competing subscriptions and new hardware (hardware profits are propped up by consumption desires, and obselesence). People still buy a new cellphone every 2 years because they want to keep up with their peers, otherwise basic cellphones have always dropped in price since they were introduced.

[Steven Douglas]

Cell phones are not an "automation" to pay phone booths. People today with cellphones do not use their cellphones every time they would have used a pay phone.

No, people DO use their cellphones "every time they would have used a pay phone..." and then some. It's the "and then some" (more efficient and expanded usage capability) aspect that you're claiming disqualifies it as automation, when in fact that is evidence of the effects of automation.

Doing so would require pay phones to be at every intersection, or people only using them at locations where there were phone booths. We both know that doesn't happen.

That's an attempt to establish a standard for automation that doesn't exist (a one-for-one locale equivalence from the past to the future).

That is like saying that modern highways are not an automation of yesteryear's roads and trails, because today's highways lead to far more places than the old roads once did, and could not be found everywhere then in the same places they are now. We both know that they weren't, but neither is that the defining factor for automation. It is also like saying that automobiles are not an "automation" of horse-drawn carriages because people do not use their automobiles every time they would have used a horse-drawn carriage. And yet they do...and then some, due largely to automation.

Yes, there are lots of jobs created by the cellphone industry, they have to do with repair, replacement, customer service, billing and contracts. These jobs are not much different than home phone landline related jobs, the only difference is selling competing subscriptions and new hardware (hardware profits are propped up by consumption desires, and obselesence). People still buy a new cellphone every 2 years because they want to keep up with their peers, otherwise basic cellphones have always dropped in price since they were introduced.

All of the above is a non sequitur, wholly unrelated to the original claim that pay phones have been replaced, for the most part, by cell phones--an indisputable fact of reality that should be obvious to the casual observer. Also, there are landline-related jobs that still exist, just as there are still horsedrawn carriages in existence. So what? How they compete with one another as modes of transportation is as irrelevant to the original claim as consumer motives and buying patterns related to cell phones. The reality there is that cellphone automation has also replaced many landlines (mine included, for the past 15 years, and I had a landline for 35 years prior to that).

[Tpoints]

No, people DO use their cellphones "every time they would have used a pay phone..." and then some. It's the "and then some" (more efficient and expanded usage capability) aspect that you're claiming disqualifies it as automation, when in fact that is evidence of the effects of automation.

I was using automation as "replacing labor, simplifying a process". Of which "and then some" would not be. Since it is adding an opportunity of usage which the old technology couldn't, and didn't provide (thereby not replacing any labor or reducing any processes).

That's an attempt to establish a standard for automation that doesn't exist (a one-for-one locale equivalence from the past to the future).

Not quite. I was establishing that if the usage isn't comparable, it's not a replacement, and therefore not an automation. A rocket is not an automation to an airplane. A car is not an automation to a bicycle (not unless a car is intended to run at a bicycle speed or anybody tried to make a man powered vehicle run at a car speed).

That is like saying that modern highways are not an automation of yesteryear's roads and trails, because today's highways lead to far more places than the old roads once did, and could not be found everywhere then in the same places they are now.

Yes, it's exactly what I am saying. I define automation as replacing and reducing labor, where a person had to once "manually" act. Either that, or machinery and processes are simplified, thereby cutting production time.

All of the above is a non sequitur, wholly unrelated to the original claim that pay phones have been replaced, for the most part, by cell phones--an indisputable fact of reality that should be obvious to the casual observer.

I would argue that that's not true. Instead, pay phones in the United States were rare to begin with, and cellphones were filling the demand pay phones either couldn't or didn't want to. Anybody who's been to Taiwan will see that payphones haven't decreased, people use cellphones to answer, but not always to call. Why do they stand to use a phone booth when they can talk and walk? Because it's cheaper, more private (lacking subscriber identification). That's right, you may be surprised to find out that pay phones can be cheaper than cellphones to make phone calls, and that's probably why they haven't been replaced.

As for "so what", I was arguing that technology, innovation, automation replaces and reduces jobs, even if they create some. Somebody argues that there's a net gain in jobs/employment from automation, I am arguing that net loss is more likely (and not that it's a bad thing).

Let me put it this way, in response to the guy who says "I've never met a banker/teller who lost his job to an ATM". One might as "so what DID the ATM do?" One doesn't need to completely lose his job to be affected by automation. Did the ATM do things he couldn't? Did the ATM do things he can? Has his job been easier or harder because of ATMs? Is he now paid the same for less work or more for more work? If ATMs were never used in his town, would more bankers/tellers need to be employed? If you've never met a POTENTIAL teller who was never hired or interviewed because an ATM was installed to replace him in advance, does that mean they don't exist?

This is why I pointed out that usage difference disqualifies automation, or at least in the context of unemployment. Why hasn't cellphones put pay phone workers out of business (or if they did), because pay phones were never in many places cellphones are today. Why hasn't ATMs put some tellers out of work (taking his claim at face value as true), because ATMs "did some jobs tellers won't do". If you used ATMs only during hours when tellers are not available, I guarantee you will replace zero tasks and thus reduce zero jobs of tellers. But if you used ATMs more often, even when you have a choice between a person and a machine, then some would be replaced or reduced. Only then, will you and can you say that one has "automated, replaced, reduced" another.

[jmdrake]

I never made that claim. However, when they can manufacture one of these truck frames at well under $100 while this guy is manufacturing his in the US for $220, what happens when they sell the Chinese versions for $199.99 and they are just about as good as the ones being made here? He can't even get his cost down to the price of the Chinese made versions..

Again, it depends on the consumer. Again I gave you the example of the Nike shoes. People who want to buy Nikes don't care if the off brand is just as good. It could be made in the same factory.

Yes but if you can do it here it is cheaper because you don't have to ship.

That's true.

You could look at it like that.. But would you prefer this guy who has a penchant for manufacturing in the US be the successful entrepreneur who brought this product to market through outsourcing, or would you rather a company that has a penchant for manufacturing overseas bring this product to market and be successful?

You're asking me? I would seriously prefer the guy with a penchant for manufacturing in the U.S. If life was simply about who was the most "economically efficient" then I would have voted for Mitt Romney instead of Ron Paul. (Lower costs per vote). And yes, I see this as the same principle. The people saying "Oh you're creating more jobs in the U.S. by outsourcing" are full of shit. It's not just the manufacturing being outsourced. It's the call centers and the accounting and the software engineering and just about everything except point of sale and even that can be outsourced if we're talking about Internet sales. Pretty soon the only jobs left will be UPS, Walmart, hospitals and resturants. (Walmart seems immune to the whole dot.com effect). Do I want the government to get involved? No. Not except for getting out of the way of U.S. manufacturers. Would I pay more for something made in the U.S.? Absolutely!

[jmdrake]

I am a Business Analyst for a company who actively pursues manufacturing products in China and Taiwan, our profit margin is nearly double for items manufactured overseas. If we didn't do it, our competitor would be in business and we would not. It is not our decision to manufacture overseas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Oreck


Toyota has assembly plants in the US, too, but the components aren't built here.

Again, who said anything about whether all of the parts are made in the U.S.? I certainly didn't. But hey, go for it. I hope they outsource your business analyst job as well. I'm sure someone in India could do it over the Internet for 1/2 the price.

Edit: And for the record, I wasn't attacking companies who outsource so quit being defensive! I was applauding the decision of the inventor in the OP to want to manufacture in the U.S.

[tod evans]

hehe, well then, take it as a tip. made in america shoes and made in america clothing.

A little out of my league, but my Wranglers and Redwings are made here too...

[Brian4Liberty]

It's been my experience that my "cheap Chinese shit" breaks a whole helluva lot faster than my "made in America" shit, especially tools.

Just my 2 cents' worth...

When I was a kid, we had the same toaster until after I had moved out of the house. So it must have lasted over 15 years, if not more. It seems that the lifespan of toasters today is about 1-2 years.