It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama says:"Atm's and kiosks hurt jobs"

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The "smartest man ever to hold the Whitehouse" has made the "news cycle" by embarrassing himself making(yet another) incredibly short sighted (hopefully)"off the cuff"statement:


Obama is facing ridicule today for his astoundingly tone-deaf implication that the proliferation of ATMs is partially to blame for America’s unacceptably high 20%+ un- and underemployment rate.

Blaming ATMs for unemployment demonstrates a short-sightedness that is beneath the President and belies his reputation among liberals as someone who is brilliant, intuitive, pragmatic, smart, and elegant in thought, word, and deed.

Instead, the ‘ATMs are to blame’ statement shows the President in a moment of profound economic unawareness on such a basic level that it is actually sad.

To the chagrin of the many Americans waiting for the President to put forth a bold jobs and economic growth plan, it also indicates that the nation’s chief executive seems to have given up thinking creatively on the economy:

(Obama quote):" "There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."


Continue reading on Examiner.com Obama blames unemployment on ATMs - National post-partisan | Examiner.com www.examiner.com...


www.examiner.com...


No mention of the "guy(s) "who install/ repair and fill the Atms nor the company who manufatures it.
And the added costs to the airline industry (tickets) by forcing them to hire.

If you are "inefficient" today;you go out of business because of excessive overhead costs.( Then nobody has a job at that company). ( i.e. the slow wildebeast gets taken down by nature).
edit on 15-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Really Mr Barry? That's all you can come up with to solve our unemployment problems? Well then might as well get rid of fastfood chains and supermarkets and go to the farms directly. Get rid of the car dealers and buy directly from the factories. Get rid of public transportation so we can buy more from car manufacturers. Get rid of the internet so we can buy more newspapers and use the postal offices for mailing letters. Get rid of cellphones so we can start using landlines again.




There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.


How about we start with state and government jobs and TSA first....


edit on 15-6-2011 by balon0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


While I like Obama like I like a swift kick in the shin, I kinda understand what he is saying here. Unless he was trying to say that we should remove ATMs from our communities?

A lot of the jobs that can be automated, are now automated or are on their way to be automated. Make a phone call to any major business and talk to a 'machine', own a factory and let 'machines' make the product, etc. II'm sure there are much more modern examples also) And, yes, there will always be more jobs, but these newer jobs often tend to fall in fields that need college-learned expertise. While obviously a lot of college graduates out there are not going right out the door of the university and getting jobs, they still have a much better chance than if they didn't go to school, in terms of getting a high paying job. In my opinion, our country could do a lot more when it comes to getting our citizens through college. This alone, I think, would help boost employment. I'm kinda wondering if this is what Obama was trying to say?

Here is an interesting list of "the best jobs"' based on pay and growth... it looks like most, if not all of them, require a degree.

Basically, from that article, I figured that Obama was kinda trying to politely say that "Hey, we've always kinda been able to get by on high school diplomas for the most part, but now so many of our jobs are automated, so we need to rethink what we are doing". But maybe I'm just reading too much into it!



edit on 15-6-2011 by AlphaBetaGammaX because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2011 by AlphaBetaGammaX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I see he's adopting the New Jersey model of "mandated monkeys to pump gas" to increase employment.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by balon0
 


Wow, i will one up barry... Lets just quit our jobs, take off our clothes and move into the woods, that way, we dont need to worry about silly jobs, housing, or imaginary money. Problem solved!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
By the looks of it, this article is twisting Obama's words - misrepresenting the actual point that he was making.

Obama was just stating that technology and machines, which displace human workers, contribute to overall unemployment . He just mentioned ATMs as an everyday example to illustrate his point.

For the article to extrapolate ''Obama blames unemployment on ATMs'' from the statements he made is quite some reach.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Doesnt misrepresent the point.

Technophobes have been crying over lost jobs as long as there has been tech.

Printing press, cotton gin, steam engine, microprocessor.

It's like I shouldnt use a block and tackle because it would be putting my muscles out of work.

Maybe he should dump his Blackberry and hire a half dozen "go-fors" to fetch his messages.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Technophobes have been crying over lost jobs as long as there has been tech.



It all went downhill when we developed flushing toilets and plumbing.. putting the royal toilet attendants out of work. WE wont mention the jobs created BY technology.. to develop,build, install, maintain, etc..
The development of the ATM or kiosk, the maintenance folks, the companies that fabricate it, the ones who manufacture the components.. etc. Lets get rid of all of that.. those damned pesky ATMs... making it so easy to access our "money".

I wonder how much harder the existence of ATMs make it to pull off an overnight "bank holiday"?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Look, he may not be dawning revelations on mankind or anything. But what he says is true. You cannot compare ATM repair jobs with teller jobs. Banks in my town are all from the 70's for the most part. When you walk in, most desks/teller windows are completely vacant Where there was once room for 10, now 2 work.

Consider the kiosks in just 1 light: the evolution of video rental to Red Box and streaming has destroyed jobs at the myriad video rental places that used to be on every street corner.

Were these jobs decent paying? Not really. Tellers don't get rich, nor do Blockbuster employees. But if you talk about jobs, there is a significant jobs loss from the improved efficiencies and change in culture. I could go on and on, literally for hours, on how improved efficiency, primarily through technological advances, has cost jobs, and made fewer people at the tops of corporate ladders more and more wealthy.

Of course, most Republicans here on ATS would agree with that last sentence. Unless it would also indicate that Obama was right for once. And believe me, I think Obama is a total moron.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
By the looks of it, this article is twisting Obama's words - misrepresenting the actual point that he was making.

Obama was just stating that technology and machines, which displace human workers, contribute to overall unemployment . He just mentioned ATMs as an everyday example to illustrate his point.

For the article to extrapolate ''Obama blames unemployment on ATMs'' from the statements he made is quite some reach.


It is wholly typical of the extreme levels of mendacity to be found in what passes for "politics" in America. Screaming harpies whining and screeching about imagined indiscretions. If only they realized how silly it all looks through the glass, from a third person perspective.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


It is misrepresenting his point, because there was nothing ''technophobic'' about his comments.

It's just stating a fact to say that technology is displacing human workers more and more. In these instances, machines are more cost effective, reliable and, in many cases, can do the job better.

Private businesses aren't charities, so there is no onus upon them to retain human employees when they can get computers to do the same job more cheaply and efficiently. I didn't see anything in his comments which suggested restricting a business' use of technology to create or preserve more jobs.

It doesn't make someone a Luddite to neutrally observe that this is detrimental to the overall number of people in employment, as technology is largely replacing the existing jobs that are normally held by unskilled and semiskilled workers.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is wholly typical of the extreme levels of mendacity to be found in what passes for "politics" in America. Screaming harpies whining and screeching about imagined indiscretions. If only they realized how silly it all looks through the glass, from a third person perspective.


I agree.

As someone who lives outside the US and who can't stand partisan politics, I can only shake my head when I read some of the political ''debates'' on here.

''Can't see the woods for the trees'' is a phrase that springs to mind. While people spend their time pettily squabbling over ''he said, she said'' and blanketly apportioning blame to anybody on the opposing political ''team'', they are really arguing over irrelevancies and missing the big picture.

I tend to avoid these kind of political threads unless the headline grabs my attention. This particular one piqued my curiosity.




top topics



 
2

log in

join