Companies spend on technology, not workers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/business/10capital.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

by yummyfajitas • 15 years ago

15 25 15 years ago

nytimes.com

gaius• 15 years ago

You get rich in a gold rush selling shovels.

josephcooney• 15 years ago

I've heard it described as the 'pick and pan' strategy

wccrawford• 15 years ago

No, they spend on both, keeping in mind the benefits they'll get from each.

Why do people expect companies to throw money around just because someone needs a job? It's not a company's mission to create jobs. It's to make money. Sometimes that means creating jobs, but that's a side-effect, not a primary goal.

mgkimsal4• 15 years ago

You're correct, but we do need to evaluate what society's role is in dealing with this recent bust. The fact that we can suddenly be as productive as 3 years ago but with 7 million fewer jobs says quite a number of things, but the fact remains that 7 million people who were previously productive contributing members of society suddenly aren't, mostly through no direct fault of their own. What, if anything, should we be doing for these people? Retraining? Handouts?

yummyfajitas2• 15 years ago

...the fact remains that 7 million people who were previously productive contributing members of society suddenly aren't...

I don't see how this is a fact. It's one interpretation of the facts we see (productivity is up, employment is not).

Another interpretation of the facts is that 7 million people were on payroll but were not productive, and employer/producers have now corrected this mistake.

zwieback4• 15 years ago

You used the word "productive" twice in your posting, once in the economic sense, once in the sense that most people feel "productive" when they go to work every day. Therein lays the problem - so many pre-recession jobs were simply unnecessary.

The US now has to come to terms with structural unemployment, which is something European nations have been struggling with for decades.

vacri• 15 years ago

Did you even read the article?

michaelcampbell• 15 years ago

Some do neither, too. Or at best, not enough of either.

foobard• 15 years ago

With equipment prices dropping, and tax incentives to subsidize capital investments, these trends seem likely to continue.

Sounds like skewed incentives.

mbesto• 15 years ago

Behind every piece of technology is a human.

> “You don’t have to train machines,” Mr. Mishek observes.

This is such an overgeneralized comment. What specific business processes are these "machines" replacing? Where's the ROI comparison?

I'm taking this article with a grain of salt.

swombat• 15 years ago

Culling the résumés takes three days. Then he must make time to interview applicants, and spend $150 for each drug test.

I can think of a way that this company could save $150 per interviewed applicant. Can anyone else spot it?

What does recreational drug use outside of work have to do with plastics manufacture? Do the plastics feel different if the engineer had a joint two weeks earlier?

zwieback4• 15 years ago

I think he's hiring (or not hiring) operators and technicians and the fact that there's a safety training program involved hints at some danger in the workplace. In that position I would also prefer someone with a clean drug test although I would still worry that they show up stoned on their first day and get their arm into the extruder or whatever.

corin_• 15 years ago

I've never touched anything stronger than weed, and I haven't even been near that in a long time - but if an employer (new or current) asked me to take a drug test, unless they had a justifiable reason for believing I specifically was on drugs, then I'd refuse on principle.

namdnay• 15 years ago

In that case, why not ban any candidates who had a beer in the last two weeks as well? I wouldn't want someone to turn up drunk at work either.

mcculley• 15 years ago

There are lots of forces on a business that can mandate drug policies, especially when working with heavy equipment. Insurance companies can require it, as can federal and state regulations.

hackernewz3• 15 years ago

Yes, they feel invisible because they weren't made because the guy had an accident because he shows up to work high and operates heavy machinery and gets hospitalized and the company's insurance rates go up.

Companies spend on technology, not workers

Related Stories