Wisconsin vote and mainstream media

[cminor9]

Well, maybe those who have not attended University agree to that.

JM, I think you may be unaware of the context of my statement. In another thread (related, since they are all running together at this point), I made this statement which brought up the topic of education.

"
What are you reading/have you read? Have you studied history at a university? What are your credentials to educate me? It's fine if you are an autodidact; but if you are trying to educate me as you say you are then you'd better come armed with some credible, verifiable facts. That's the nice thing about discussions on history: I can fact check. So bring em.
"

Education obviously matters, but not in the sense that I am unwilling to listen to a person who is well educated but lacking a formal education. I would hope nobody here would refuse to hear another person's argument due to a lack of a degree. Some of the smartest people I know have little formal education, and I know and work with some educated fools. Education may correlate with intellect, but it certainly isn't the defining attribute.

[cminor9]

Weekly earnings by amount of education

amount of education-----median weekly earnings
doctoral degree-----------$1,441
professional degree--------$1,474
master’s degree-----------$1,140
bachelor’s degree---------$962
associate degree----------$721
college dropout-----------$674
high school grad----------$595
high school dropout-------$419


Unemployment rate by amount of education

amount of education-----unemployment rate
doctoral degree-----------1.4%
professional degree--------1.1%
master’s degree-----------1.7%
bachelor’s degree----------2.3%
associate degree----------3.0%
college dropout------------3.9%
high school grad-----------4.3%
high school dropout--------6.8%

That's not right or left but fact.

Those numbers sound wrong to me.

College dropout here. Scored in the 99th percentile on entrance exams (ACT, SAT) and got money thrown my way, but got totally bored at about my second year in college. Maybe I should have tried to get into MIT or something like that so I wouldn't be bored. Maybe I shot a little low, or maybe I didn't work hard enough in high school to get the GPA (again, was bored) Anyhow, I dropped out and got a job for, apparently, PhD money. Go figure.

I think being bored in school is why I get upset with talk of cutting education comes up. Children need to be challenged, and gifted children who are bored don't always realize their full potential. That sucks. All because it's more important to provide tax cuts for "job creators" or throw tomahawk missiles at Iraqis.

[big_teee]

JM, I think you may be unaware of the context of my statement. In another thread (related, since they are all running together at this point), I made this statement which brought up the topic of education.

"
What are you reading/have you read? Have you studied history at a university? What are your credentials to educate me? It's fine if you are an autodidact; but if you are trying to educate me as you say you are then you'd better come armed with some credible, verifiable facts. That's the nice thing about discussions on history: I can fact check. So bring em.
"

Education obviously matters, but not in the sense that I am unwilling to listen to a person who is well educated but lacking a formal education. I would hope nobody here would refuse to hear another person's argument due to a lack of a degree. Some of the smartest people I know have little formal education, and I know and work with some educated fools. Education may correlate with intellect, but it certainly isn't the defining attribute.

You in fact state, that you are well read, and your Reading though may not be all, but is in fact a large part of your Education.
I have done a lot of stateside Traveling, and in my 42 Years of Phone Eqpt Installation, I've been to many Schools of Hard Knocks!
Not too many Dog and Pony Shows, I've not Seen!
When you say educate me.
On here, there is no requirement to educate, as these are all Strictly Opinions.
Everyone has one.
Many things in life form your Impressions, Expressions and Opinions.
You have Yours, and I have mine.
Bill has his, though I don't agree with it often, He still has his right to have one.
Thats what makes this, and Many Other Countries great.
We all have the rights to express our insights and Opinions, Regardless how Kookie some of us may think they are.
The Moral of the story!
Is,
Above All!
Make us Proud, Play it Loud, and
KEEP ROCKIN!
PEACE,
B_T

[cminor9]

You in fact state, that you are well read, and your Reading though may not be all, but is in fact a large part of your Education.
I have done a lot of stateside Traveling, and in my 42 Years of Phone Eqpt Installation, I've been to many Schools of Hard Knocks!
Not too many Dog and Pony Shows, I've not Seen!

Yep, you're talking about wisdom which I have a lot of respect for. What's the old joke? Being smart is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Being wise is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad.

When you say educate me.
On here, there is no requirement to educate, as these are all Strictly Opinions.

Again, context. Someone said that I was refusing to let him educate me. That was my rebuttal. And I in fact come to this site for education. I have learned a lot about electronics here, but also these side discussions are a place where I have learned some interesting stuff. It takes a lot of hubris to think that you can't learn from another person, regardless of that person's station in life. But if someone is claiming facts, then I want to see proof. I may disagree with much of what Bill Moore says in this regard, but I have also seen him say some wise things here.

Make us Proud, Play it Loud, and
KEEP ROCKIN!
PEACE,

Now that I can get behind!

[Mark Hammer]

When one looks at the association between education and earnings, you always have to factor in what sorts of career moves people make voluntarily, as well as what they might be limited or have access to and how well those are compensated. I know in government we have wads of Ph.D.s like myself who could probably make more if we could stomach moving into the management stream where all the MBAs and MPAs go, but it nauseates us. So, we forfeit the added income because remaining in the world of learning holds more appeal than climbing up the career ladder and taking on jobs that aren't really about anything. The jobs are certainly available, and I know from being part of a pan-governmental working group on succession planning for science managers that it is bloody hard trying to find people who are at once knowledgeable about their field (i.e., edumacated) and interested in being science managers.

In turn, when one looks at the unemployment rate, and its association with education, you can see that the lowest unemployment figures are for those who can hang out their own shingle and create stable employment for themselves, while the highest unemployment rates are for those who ae obliged to depend on others for their jobs. And "others" tend not to see the continuity of your employment as being quite as important as their own.

Of course, anyone can create their own job, but some kinds of self-created jobs are more precarious than others. Same way that education can create opportunity for more handsomely compensated careers...but you gotta want them and go after them first. As a result, you can expect a great deal of case-by-case variation in what you see from both more and less educated persons in the labour market.

[Mark Hammer]

Some of my very best students were mature students who had come back after years away from school. They were generally among the best because: a) they insisted on there being a tangible punch-line/purpose/connection to everything they learned, and b) unlike their younger cockier counterparts they were just anxious enough about whether they could cut it to actually do the damn work. Dedication, hard work, focus, and a sense of purpose. Man, who'd have thunk THAT would be useful?

[miltown]

I gotta get outta here . Here is some video from WI protests on Fri. See all those union thugs and 2 Walker supporters , one was a retired union employee worked as a nurse. One more Walker supporter showed up later that's 3 total .This is a password protected album on Vimeo password: protest. Caution some union thugs are in the video. Here is some more in a news story. Watch Brother Bob lie on TV with a smile about no public funds are spent there. It's a choice school ie.... meaning people with STATE vouchers for education send their kids there. It just started this year. Also it was 2 people arrested but they deserved it as any protester would agree. And all that union glue cleaned up with WD40 and a dental pick about an hours time. They also said it showed one union thug in the video Bill not a bunch of union thugs. How old are you "thugs" really.

[km6xz]

The mindless repetition of words have the unthinking believe the meaning of "thugs" is teachers of their children, protectors or their life and property, administrators of state services.

There will always demagogues who seek to, and skillfully, exploit the mentally impaired to do their bidding for them. Another phrase that means the opposite of its original meaning in Right Land talk..."Small Business", as in those who make over a $1,000,000 a year and who must be protected from meany citizens who want everyone to pay their fair share. I'll scream the next time I hear a bagger or congressman claim they are refusing to enact revenue generating taxes on the wealth by claiming they were protecting the small business owners because that who will be "hurt" if a tax increase or loophole closure is targetting those earning over $1,000,000 a year. Why no reporter does not call them on that obvious lie means they are in on the scam also. Another one is the nonsensical "job-creators"

[Quantum Cat]

...they are refusing to enact revenue generating taxes on the wealth...

A revenue "generating" tax to the government is a revenue "extracting" tax to the business. Since businesses use revenue to pay workers, it follows that less revenue means less workers. This is Economics 101 For Dummies level stuff.

[JoeM]

Workers arent free either, so less workers means greater profits.

[Quantum Cat]

Workers arent free either, so less workers means greater profits.

And if they fired everybody, turned off all the lights and sold the building, the money would just come rolling in!
Wow Joe....God love ya'.

[Mark Hammer]

A revenue "generating" tax to the government is a revenue "extracting" tax to the business. Since businesses use revenue to pay workers, it follows that less revenue means less workers. This is Economics 101 For Dummies level stuff.

Unfortunately, the reverse isn't true as often as one might imagine or would like. That is, less taxes do not have a solid track record of translating into more jobs or greater investment in capital expenses by industry (which in turn creates jobs elsewhere, such as in construction or equipment manufacturers). It might translate into shareholder dividends, or bonuses to management, or simply to cash flow the business owner would like to hang onto. One would only expect it to turn into jobs if there was a reasonable expectation on the part of the owner that the economy was stable enough to commit to hiring. Reducing taxes to the business owner will only prompt them to commit to using that money to hire if they have assurances they aren't potentially getting themselves into deep water via that commitment. The instability of the economy carries far more weight here than whatever meagre tax reductions can be dangled by government in front of employers like a bright shiny object.

Employers may fully intend to hire, and might sincerely imagine that, with lower taxes, they could get a few more people. But I think when push comes to shove, if they feel uncertain about the future, those sincere intentions turn into things they'd like to do, rather than things they actually do. Besides, you want them to be hiring for full-time long-term jobs, not for temporary jobs they can abandon should the winds change.

In fairness, I think that doesn't get covered in Economics 101, but only comes up in the 300-level courses.

[JoeM]

And if they fired everybody, turned off all the lights and sold the building, the money would just come rolling in!
Wow Joe....God love ya'

You missed my point entirely. Companies pay tax on their net profits, after deducting for employees. It's a myth that lowering the tax rates will improve the job situation. Many top CEOs were compensated more than the tax bill for the companies they work for.

[Quantum Cat]

Mark, Lowering taxes may not prompt any given company into hiring, but raising taxes will definately not prompt a company into hiring. The examples you cited, shareholder dividends (retirees), bonuses and extra cash flow do stimulate economic activity simply by the fact that it puts money into peoples pockets. The company may invest the money in equipment that will produce more employment down the road. This attitude that "there's a pile of money let's grab it" is long term foolish.

Joe: "Companies pay tax on their net profits, after deducting for employees." The profits for the company are a result of the goods and services produced by the workers. If you have less workers you have less product.

[J M Fahey]

And if they fired everybody, turned off all the lights and sold the building, the money would just come rolling in!

Well, that's EXACTLY what most Companies did , by moving manufacturing to China or even plain closing manufacturing operations altogether and simply selling relabelled stuff.
Best description of US Industrial policy I ever read.

[JoeM]

For many businesses income taxes have very little or nothing do with hiring. You can't have employees if you have no revenues to support them, regardless of the tax rates. Of course you have to have workers to have product (or services), but that product has to be sold.

[Quantum Cat]

Well, that's EXACTLY what most Companies did , by moving manufacturing to China or even plain closing manufacturing operations altogether and simply selling relabelled stuff.
Best description of US Industrial policy I ever read.

We have a very business unfriendly environment here right now. This is the predictable result. As China moves towards freer markets, we are moving in the opposite direction.

...income taxes have very little or nothing do with hiring. You can't have employees if you have no revenues to support them

These two statements are contradictory. Taxes reduce revenues > revenues pay workers. If Bob has 10 apples and the government takes 5, how many apples does Bob have?

[JoeM]

We have a very business unfriendly environment here right now. This is the predictable result. As China moves towards freer markets, we are moving in the opposite direction.

These two statements are contradictory. Taxes reduce revenues > revenues pay workers. If Bob has 10 apples and the government takes 5, how many apples does Bob have?

You still dont get it. You are still assuming taxes are somehow paid from Gross revenues, not net profit. Download form 1120 from the IRS and see if you can figure it out.

[Mark Hammer]

We have a very business unfriendly environment here right now. This is the predictable result. As China moves towards freer markets, we are moving in the opposite direction.

These two statements are contradictory. Taxes reduce revenues > revenues pay workers. If Bob has 10 apples and the government takes 5, how many apples does Bob have?

1) Moving in the direction of China is not exactly what most Americans would call their dream come true. This is one of the dark sides of globalization - the "race to the bottom".

2) Far too many jobs have moved offshore or south of the border because too many boards of directors construe not paying salaries as equivalent to revenue. Once they've moved away, reducing taxes will not bring those jobs back, because the "revenue increases" have already been achieved...at least in the minds of shareholders.

3) Economic decisions are not made on an entirely rational basis. This is why decision-makers place such emphasis on touchy-feely things like "consumer confidence", despite the fact that consumer confidence is not well-correlated with actual consumer spending.

4) I still maintain that a lot of what drives all of this is the social institution of retirement. Many of the largest investment funds are pension funds, and they migrate to wherever the biggest ROI is, because if you plan to live off interest for 25 years, after having worked full-time only 30-35 years, you're going to need one helluva lot of interest, which means those you invest in are going to have to impress the daylights out of you with their profitability or else your money is going to move elsewhere. Stated quite simply, there are a whole helluva lot of people who don't want to work that are making it increasing difficult for others who do want to work to get work.

[Quantum Cat]

Mark: I think you're misunderstanding some of my arguments.
1) I agree! I was talking about free markets, not political freedoms. We can compete with higher wages as long as we have higher productivity.
2) Disagree. Reducing taxes will certainly encourage some businesses to return and others to grow. Taxes and excessive regs are burdens. Lift those burdens and the economy will grow.
3) Agree! Planning for the future is extremely difficult. That's why it's much better to leave planning to the people whose fates are in the balance rather than "enlightened" elites in the government." Skin in the game" so to speak.
4) Agree with reservations. ROI and economic growth are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. I'm not understanding how high ROI opportunities would make it difficult to find work.

[Mark Hammer]

Glad we find some common ground. All too often not enough of it in these "soap box" threads!

2) The deeper question is what sort of tax cuts are sufficient to re-attract employers. In some instances, particularly with manufacturing jobs, businesses have redefined their price-points and product lines to suit the Wal-martization of everything. The sorts of tax cuts required to bring those jobs back would result in having to severely cut the services provided by government - you lay off Peter to hire Paul. But I'd be the first to admit that here we are in the land of pure speculation. It's a gamble, and part of the reason why it's a gamble is because other nations have different labour laws, and different environmental controls. So, exactly what sort of tax cut would be the minimum required to make a manufacturer relocate back in the face of all those other reduced business costs?

Of course, I'm digressing here and dealing only with outsourcing. Part of the arguments presented in favour of tax cuts has to do with increasing employment by domestic employers, not just out-sourced multi-nationals. One should not confuse what I raise about relocating jobs back to the USA with whatever putative benefit might occur for large and/or small domestic employers.

4) My point about the interconnectedness of pension funds, high ROI, and the unavailability of work has to do with the pressure provided by shareholders that results in jobs being outsourced in order to maintain high ROI or the appearance of a promise of high ROI; the kind that pension funds need. Like I mentioned earlier, in the minds of shareholders and boards of directors, greater profitability resulting from decreased salary costs is completely equivalent to greater profitability resulting from tax cuts. But, as I also noted, the question is what sorts of tax cuts are deemed to be "enough" to satisfy shareholders? My sense is that there are few if any viable tax cuts that could satisfy shareholders. You can always find somewhere desperate enough to provide ridiculously cheap labour, and the odds of being able to maintain government and offer tax cuts comparable to those reduced labour costs are slim. I'm not saying you're dead wrong, but neither am I particularly hopeful about tax cuts having the capacity to turn things around. Moreover, if tax cuts are used in a try-it-and-see manner, and titrated each year or every couple of years to reach the sweet spot, you end up with an unstable public sector that simply can't plan because they have no budgetary predictability. I don't think many parents want to buy that new house out in the burbs if it's a crap shoot as to whether there will or won't be a school bus to get their kid to school next year.

[Bill Moore]

I realize all companies can't work like the automotive business, but it allows all to share in the rewards, or misery. Mechanics are paid comission on a flat rate set by several sources, depending on the job. Car salesman, like realtors are also paid comission. I hire mechanics straight comission, and after a couple of months may decide to guarantee (usually 24 hr) per week, so the hand can have a salary to count on even in lean times. My last guy was making 28.50 a flat rate, and during the good months would make 1K or more a week. Last winter was tough, (the mines were still out), and I paid him all winter, (often not breaking even), figuring to catch up when the work started coming in. Come spring he decided to move to Tucson! He was with me three years.
I wish there was a way to make everybody involved in a company's success, (or failure), realize that their productivity makes a difference. The local mines fought with the unions for years, until they started paying non union workers bonuses during the good times, (sometimes 8-10K per year). The workers (mostly) decertified, and are now making more than their union counterparts. If we could just get the enviromental departments to lighten up, (fining them almost a million dollars for a spill from historic flooding into a wash, that 30 years ago people were leaching copper from!), I think more folks could be working here.

[J M Fahey]

It's very very difficult to set up wages, even more wage scales, compensations, overtime, etc.
People seem to have a diode in their minds (not blaming anybody, just an observation), where if you pay them even 1% less than what they expect, they get angry and work at, say, 50% capacity, and if you double the salary, they work at most 10% more.
Oh well, sometimes one dreams that all factories were robotic !!
One way out is to offer them credit, so they swallow the hook, and later have to work double or triple, just to pay debts and the dangers of not being able to afford due payments.
They will do for fear what they did not want to do on their own will.
Any similarity with reality is only coincidence.
Is it?

[Mark Hammer]

Well you've hit on something I think is quite relevant. And that is that sometimes, presumptions about the relationship between business taxes and employment might be spot on. Small businesses like the automotive ones you describe may well be able to provide a bit more work and more remuneration for employees if the overhead is reduced.

The trouble is, and you seem to agree in the tone of your lead-in, not all businesses work that way or are similarly affected. So the bigger question then becomes: "On balance, is what is gained via tax cuts to small businesses enough to offset what may be lost by offering those cuts to other kinds of employers?" And that is a tough question to answer with any certainty. Sometimes you DO have to forfeit a little to get a lot back. And sometimes you don't even get your bait back in the weight of the fish.

I think the flaw in the kinds of pressure being applied to legislators is that it tends to adopt a one-size-fits-all strategy and insist on broad measures, rather than targeted or nuanced ones. I'm happy to help out small businesses because I know they employ a lot of people. And what I especially like about them is that they aren't the cut and run kind. An auto-body shop or a convenience store is not going to move where the wages are cheaper. Small businesses are stable, and aim for a decent living and fair services, not the constant expansion that often results in huge business flops and layoffs. But how does one implement business tax cuts to preferentially aid those small businesses? Again, it's that perpetual bugaboo of drafting sensible policy that takes the details of the real world into account.

[big_teee]

Your forgetting one thing about Most small businesses, and all the Ones I know.
Most of them don't pay near all taxes due anyway, because of the Cash Box.
How many times do you hear do you want a ticket on that or if you pay cash I wont charge any taxes?
I worked for a large company and paid every penny in tax owed, it was deducted from My check.
Then on the other foot the private Bizz guy lives like a king and claims little.
That's why the small biz guy hates Social Security, he won't get to draw much because he probably didn't pay in much.
That's why I am so Adamant about drawing my Social Security.
I paid a lot in and I get a nice Check, and I want what is due.
If you Hardly Paid any in then I can see how you look at things differently.
This happens over and over, all the time. This is the rule not the Exception.
Tell me It's not true, You know that it is.
Because of that I think small businesses are Not taxed Enough!
B_T

[miltown]

Quantum Cat :More dummy stuff , the government lowers your taxes they receive less money so there is no money for wars that we are currently in and other services that are provided. Also if you took economics you know then that our economy is also dependent on how much the government can reinvest in the country ie... infrastructure ... from those taxes Also if you want to talk Economics 101 business gets started and grows by banks lending and credit availability not by how much money the owner has in their bank account. They are wealthy because they pay themselves alot of money from the business that they started by borrowing money. For instance Buffet doesn't look at his personnel bank account and go" I can buy such and such" .Currently banks are not lending and giving credit so things slow down. Investment falls and then workers lose their jobs, not because of taxes . I don't know what economics class you took but I took 3 years and never once did I learn that taxes cause business to slow or workers to lose their jobs. Oh yeah Economics for dummies that's right.

[cminor9]

I wish there was a way to make everybody involved in a company's success, (or failure), realize that their productivity makes a difference. The local mines fought with the unions for years, until they started paying non union workers bonuses during the good times, (sometimes 8-10K per year). The workers (mostly) decertified, and are now making more than their union counterparts.

See, I think this is an interesting point here. I'd say industry has the opportunity to bust unions the right way: by making them unnecessary. Treat people right, let them have a SHARE in their hard work. It seems the employment game in the US is largely stick and no carrot. I assume risk working for a place, because if it does poorly I lose my job. But often, if I perform well, I just get to keep my job, and next year probably have some shrinking benefits to show for it.

I am no fan of unions. I have family members who are tradesmen. They pay dues, get thrown on whatever jobs there are, and get laid off in the winter. They cannot use their skills and do "scab work" because that somehow violates the union's rules. So the unions end up screwing them more than anything else. Playing hardball with the unions isn't the right way. Companies should treat people well and watch the unions die. If the companies then start treating people badly, then the unions come back again. That is how the free market *should* work.

And good for you Bill. Taking care of your guys like that will hopefully do something for you to make up for that lost money: build your reputation. If there were a shop in my town that I knew treated people like that, I'd go out of my way to support them.

[Enzo]

If you have less workers you have less product.

No, not at all. COmpanies have been downsizing the workforce for years. When you can add a few hours overtime to the production line instead of hiring another shift of workers, you get the same production at a much lower cost. When you find better machinery, you do the same job with fewer workers.

In railroading there is something called a "hump yard." It is a small hill the push railroad cars one by one. They roll down the hill and are switched to various tracks. This is how they make up trains. Used to be a seven man crew ran a hump. Now they have a single guy. Used to be a engineer sat in the cab with other people working around him. Now that engineer stands trackside with a remote copntrol box for the locomotive. The one man does the whole job. No fewer cars are processed, no reduction in trains, just a reductiion in staff.

COmpanies and even governments are reducing administrative staffs all the time. General Motors - or Ford or Toyota or whoever - will not be building fewer cars just becuase they eliminate a layer of middle management. A receptionist can also be a book keeper. And as companies are finding ways to to the same work with fewer people, and indeed produce the same or even greater volume of products, a sudden increase in pocket money is not very likely to get them to say, "Oh joy, more money, let us go hire a bunch of more people to do the same work we already do with less."


And the real life experiement? We have had the Bush tax cuts in place for over a decade, yet the job growth did not result.

[cminor9]

No, not at all. COmpanies have been downsizing the workforce for years. When you can add a few hours overtime to the production line instead of hiring another shift of workers, you get the same production at a much lower cost. When you find better machinery, you do the same job with fewer workers.

In railroading there is something called a "hump yard." It is a small hill the push railroad cars one by one. They roll down the hill and are switched to various tracks. This is how they make up trains. Used to be a seven man crew ran a hump. Now they have a single guy. Used to be a engineer sat in the cab with other people working around him. Now that engineer stands trackside with a remote copntrol box for the locomotive. The one man does the whole job. No fewer cars are processed, no reduction in trains, just a reductiion in staff.

COmpanies and even governments are reducing administrative staffs all the time. General Motors - or Ford or Toyota or whoever - will not be building fewer cars just becuase they eliminate a layer of middle management. A receptionist can also be a book keeper. And as companies are finding ways to to the same work with fewer people, and indeed produce the same or even greater volume of products, a sudden increase in pocket money is not very likely to get them to say, "Oh joy, more money, let us go hire a bunch of more people to do the same work we already do with less."


And the real life experiement? We have had the Bush tax cuts in place for over a decade, yet the job growth did not result.

Two things come to mind:

1) its better to do/make something rather than manage someone who does/makes something. By this I do not mean some repetitive task, I mean doing/making something with *skill*. Being a *craftsman*
2) if robots *can* do your job, then they someday will.

For example: vacuum tubes. They do something no transistor or software can yet do adequately, so we put up with their quirks and imperfections. We are here to have this discussion because of an "obsolete" technology that just. won't. die. If you can figure out how to be a vacuum tube, you'll always feed your family

One problem with this is that some companies I have worked at cut so many people the remaining ones get so much work piled upon them they wish they'd have gotten the axe. It's pretty cheap to grind a salaried professional into the ground by working him to death.

[J M Fahey]

Interesting:

Two things come to mind:

1) its better to do/make something rather than manage someone who does/makes something. By this I do not mean some repetitive task, I mean doing/making something with *skill*. Being a *craftsman*

You are preaching to the choir here
I bet most (all?) of us here fit that description, one way or another.

2) if robots *can* do your job, then they someday will.

You bet.
In fact, you don't even need robots, but simpler dedicated machines.
Just remember the first cars' (around 1905/1910) body parts were made one by one, by skilled craftsmen, with not much more than a ball point hammer and a block of hard wood.
Enter the mighty hydraulic press .... Pffffft!

Don't want to touch a sensitive nerve here, but highly skilled technicians working in the service and repair areas, are being replaced by robots.
*Intelligent* decision taking amp repair robots? Never heard.
No, *dumb* instructions following robots which produce new stuff so cheaply that actual servicing is not needed, at least in many cases.