Avi's Economics Thread

[Brickjectivity]

If I can chime in on this even though it wasn't addressed to me.

Sure, anytime. Those are very good points to bring up which I hadn't thought about much if at all. Fairness is one of the forces in Economics I think. Perhaps they should create a variable for it. In fact for your #5, I'm fairly certain that the reason so many people are out of work is that they don't want to deal with the huge inequity of the job market. They are negotiating with the job market by avoiding it. The news calls them 'Discouraged workers'. They're more like, 'Ticked off' workers.

 

[metis]

Sure, anytime. Those are very good points to bring up which I hadn't thought about much if at all. Fairness is one of the forces in Economics I think. Perhaps they should create a variable for it. In fact for your #5, I'm fairly certain that the reason so many people are out of work is that they don't want to deal with the huge inequity of the job market. They are negotiating with the job market by avoiding it. The news calls them 'Discouraged workers'. They're more like, 'Ticked off' workers.

I'm sure there's an element such as what you say, which indeed has shown up in some polls. As you say, they're ticked off because they feel the cards are stacked against them to the point whereas they feel there's no way they're likely to get ahead.

This attitude is exceedingly dangerous because if we have a significant element in our society who believes they have nothing to lose, then overall crime will increase. For us to tell them "crime doesn't pay" is going to be nonsense to them because chances are they can at least get away with some crimes, and if they get caught, they get free room and board in prison whereas they'll learn new techniques.

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, so you'd think we'd be smart enough to figure out what's gone wrong and then fix it. Well, we ain't that smart and we ain't fixing it.

 

[Avi1001]

Yes, I love the Pogo, and agree with the rest !

We aren't? Shucks!

Anyway, I agree with what you say above. Sort of reminds me of a cartoon called "Pogo" that I saw years ago, whereas Pogo and his friends are playing at war, and then one of them bravely stands up and say "I have seen the enemy, and it's us!".

As long as we go to places like Walmart, buying the cheapest stuff we can, we are not going to remain long as the world's number one economic power. If we refuse to buy American, then our kids and grandkids have a very limited future economically. Unfortunately, we as Americans have a couple of major drawbacks that are badly hurting us economically, with one being an absence of long-term thinking and another being self-centered materialism. Remember what I said about Desmond Morris.

 

[Avi1001]

This is a very realistic concern. The only way robots will help our economy is if the low skilled, low paid workers move up the skill and pay scales. This can only happen through economic planning, job training and re-training, and use of some logic. Do you think our leaders and country are up to it ?

The results will be tumultuous though. Those low skill workers replaced by Benders,
Calculons, Crushinators, Helpers & Hedonismbots won't have jobs. What will they do?

 

[metis]

This is a very realistic concern. The only way robots will help our economy is if the low skilled, low paid workers move up the skill and pay scales. This can only happen through economic planning, job training and re-training, and use of some logic. Do you think our leaders and country are up to it ?

And if anyone wants evidence for this, just have them visit Detroit.

While putting my way through my undergrad work, I worked two summers for Ford, one for G.M., and one for Chrysler. I would walk in and apply when my spring courses were done, and usually I started the next day.

The Chrysler Plant I worked in was for final assembly, and it had over 2000 involved directly in that process. About 15 years later, I went to a G.M. final assembly plant, and there were only 300 directly involved in final assembly. What happened? Computers, robotics, and outsourcing.

Is this "progress"? Ask all those people who lost their jobs. Take a look at Detroit whereas in the 1950's and 1960's, it was the wealthiest city per capita in the U.S.

What some may not realize is that Detroit is sort of the "preview of coming attractions" for many other U.S. cities, and I'm not just saying this as many economists also feel this way.

"We have seen the enemy, and it is us!"

 

[esmith]

And if anyone wants evidence for this, just have them visit Detroit.

While putting my way through my undergrad work, I worked two summers for Ford, one for G.M., and one for Chrysler. I would walk in and apply when my spring courses were done, and usually I started the next day.

The Chrysler Plant I worked in was for final assembly, and it had over 2000 involved directly in that process. About 15 years later, I went to a G.M. final assembly plant, and there were only 300 directly involved in final assembly. What happened? Computers, robotics, and outsourcing.

Is this "progress"? Ask all those people who lost their jobs. Take a look at Detroit whereas in the 1950's and 1960's, it was the wealthiest city per capita in the U.S.

What some may not realize is that Detroit is sort of the "preview of coming attractions" for many other U.S. cities, and I'm not just saying this as many economists also feel this way.

"We have seen the enemy, and it is us!"

Seems that you are listing to some propaganda. In 2012 there were 3 million job openings in the US that were not being filled due to lack of qualified applicants.
Three million open jobs in U.S., but who's qualified? - CBS News

and more
U.S. Unemployment: Three Million Jobs in America are Waiting to be Filled

So, what is the problem. Well it seems that the jobs require skills that are not found at colleges and universities. So what is it with those that say you have to have a college education to get a good paying job. Maybe those that keep touting this falsehood are shills for the colleges and universities. Or is it that if you are a skilled tradesman you are not in the "social class" of the elite that are continuing to harp on the idea of "no formal higher education, you are beneath us". Want more examples? Just google "jobs that are not being filled in the US" and look at the results.

 

[Avi1001]

Hi ES, did anyone say we do not need more highly skilled tradesmen ? Maybe I missed something ?

Also, I notice you are a hard core Republican. For your information, when I started this thread, my intention was that it should not be political. I believe economics crosses party lines, and rises above petty political differences !

Seems that you are listing to some propaganda. In 2012 there were 3 million job openings in the US that were not being filled due to lack of qualified applicants.
Three million open jobs in U.S., but who's qualified? - CBS News

and more
U.S. Unemployment: Three Million Jobs in America are Waiting to be Filled

So, what is the problem. Well it seems that the jobs require skills that are not found at colleges and universities. So what is it with those that say you have to have a college education to get a good paying job. Maybe those that keep touting this falsehood are shills for the colleges and universities. Or is it that if you are a skilled tradesman you are not in the "social class" of the elite that are continuing to harp on the idea of "no formal higher education, you are beneath us". Want more examples? Just google "jobs that are not being filled in the US" and look at the results.

 

[esmith]

Hi ES, did anyone say we do not need more highly skilled tradesmen ? Maybe I missed something ?

Also, I notice you are a hard core Republican. For your information, when I started this thread, my intention was that it should not be political. I believe economics crosses party lines, and rises above petty political differences !

What gives you the idea I am a hard core Republican. To set your invalid assumption straight I am an Independent with strong Libertarian leanings.
Second what I said was in no way meant to be political. As a matter of fact I did not inject politics into the point. I was pointing out your flawed assumption that the advance in technology was bad because people lost their jobs. At least that is how I read your comments. If I'm wrong I apologize for misreading your intentions. The advance in technology through the years have cost the jobs of many people. Take a look at the agricultural industry. Just because technology cost some people their jobs doesn't mean that it was not beneficial to others. Maybe you misread my point on the point about higher education and those advocating that you need a college degree to be successful. However, it is true that some "people" in this country look down on those that do not have that sheepskin. Not everyone is or should go to a 4 or more year college or university. Many of our high school graduates that go on to college waste their time and money and would be better served if they went to a "trade" school or found an apprenticeship. In addition some people just do not have the educational drive to attend college yet they go becase it is "cool".

 

[Avi1001]

You are a right-wing libertarian. Lets just stick to economics on this thread. And I didn't say that: "the advance in technology was bad because people lost their jobs". Although it is true that I believe that good leadership will provide both advanced technology and good, new jobs.

I agree that trade school is the better choice for some.

What gives you the idea I am a hard core Republican. To set your invalid assumption straight I am an Independent with strong Libertarian leanings.
Second what I said was in no way meant to be political. As a matter of fact I did not inject politics into the point. I was pointing out your flawed assumption that the advance in technology was bad because people lost their jobs. At least that is how I read your comments. If I'm wrong I apologize for misreading your intentions. The advance in technology through the years have cost the jobs of many people. Take a look at the agricultural industry. Just because technology cost some people their jobs doesn't mean that it was not beneficial to others. Maybe you misread my point on the point about higher education and those advocating that you need a college degree to be successful. However, it is true that some "people" in this country look down on those that do not have that sheepskin. Not everyone is or should go to a 4 or more year college or university. Many of our high school graduates that go on to college waste their time and money and would be better served if they went to a "trade" school or found an apprenticeship. In addition some people just do not have the educational drive to attend college yet they go becase it is "cool".

 

[esmith]

You are a right-wing libertarian. Lets just stick to economics on this thread. And I didn't say that: "the advance in technology was bad because people lost their jobs". Although it is true that I believe that good leadership will provide both advanced technology and good, new jobs.

I agree that trade school is the better choice for some.

No, I am a Conservative Libertarian; as far as I know there are no "right-wing" libertarians. That description seems to be generated by those that see any and all economic policies to the "right" of their views as "right wingers"

So now back to economics:

To your point highlighted in red above. Read the below statement from your earlier post and tell me that if you were reading it for the first time that you would not make the assumption that the author of the comment is saying that technology was bad because it cost people jobs. You may not have meant it that way but that is how it comes across.

The Chrysler Plant I worked in was for final assembly, and it had over 2000 involved directly in that process. About 15 years later, I went to a G.M. final assembly plant, and there were only 300 directly involved in final assembly. What happened? Computers, robotics, and outsourcing. Is this "progress"? Ask all those people who lost their jobs. Take a look at Detroit whereas in the 1950's and 1960's, it was the wealthiest city per capita in the U.S. What some may not realize is that Detroit is sort of the "preview of coming attractions" for many other U.S. cities, and I'm not just saying this as many economists also feel this way.

Major points
1. Prior to technology upgrade 2000 people were doing a job
2. Technology brings in computers, robotics, outsourcing
3. Now 300 people doing the job that 2000 were doing
4. Conclusion: technology cost jobs...technology is bad for the workers good for the company.


Now back to economics.
All technology means is that the jobs of the past are not necessarily the jobs now or the future. To maintain ones place in the workforce requires forward looking assumptions. For instance, if one sees that a robotic manufacturing is the wave of the future one must make a decision. Do I do nothing and hope that it doesn't affect me or make the hard decision to seek education that will enable me to change my profession. It is human nature to be comfortable in one's own present situation. No one really likes change that actually requires a decision to take a chance. Yes there are those that "can see the hand writing on the wall" and make a hard decision to get out of their comfort zone and change. Those type of personalities are the ones that will survive the changing face of the workforce. Those that do nothing and know that their current work skills are not adequate are doomed to go on the rolls of taxpayers or settle for low paying, and no future upward mobility job. (taxpayer equals the ones that realized they must stay current)

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I am a Conservative Libertarian; as far as I know there are no "right-wing" libertarians. That description seems to be generated by those that see any and all economic policies to the "right" of their views as "right wingers"

True dat. No "real" libertarian would favor a government strong enuf to impose socialism upon us. "Libertarian lefties" are naught but posers who rely upon bizarre out-dated Eurostanian pseudo-etymological arguments to try to claim the vaunted label of "libertarian". But if one examines the platforms of Americastanian & Canuckistanian Libertarian parties, the "libertarian left" is left out.

 

[Avi1001]

Lets start with this, note the eleph quadrant, that is your space

No, I am a Conservative Libertarian; as far as I know there are no "right-wing" libertarians.

 

[esmith]

Lets start with this, note the eleph quadrant, that is your space

And I am assuming that you fall in the area advocated by Thomas Piketty.

 

[Avi1001]

I never worked in a Chrysler plant, dude. You quoted Metis, not me. I am an advocate for new technology. I am an engineer.

So now back to economics:

To your point highlighted in red below. Read the below statement from your earlier post and tell me that if you were reading it for the first time that you would not make the assumption that the author of the comment is saying that technology was bad because it cost people jobs. You may not have meant it that way but that is how it comes across.

Quote-Metis:
The Chrysler Plant I worked in was for final assembly, and it had over 2000 involved directly in that process. About 15 years later, I went to a G.M. final assembly plant, and there were only 300 directly involved in final assembly. What happened? Computers, robotics, and outsourcing. Is this "progress"? Ask all those people who lost their jobs. Take a look at Detroit whereas in the 1950's and 1960's, it was the wealthiest city per capita in the U.S. What some may not realize is that Detroit is sort of the "preview of coming attractions" for many other U.S. cities, and I'm not just saying this as many economists also feel this way.

 

[Avi1001]

Sorry, no politics in the Economics DIR

And I am assuming that you fall in the area advocated by Thomas Piketty.

 

[Avi1001]

What about in Franceistan ? Swedenistan and Norwayistan ?

True dat. No "real" libertarian would favor a government strong enuf to impose socialism upon us. "Libertarian lefties" are naught but posers who rely upon bizarre out-dated Eurostanian pseudo-etymological arguments to try to claim the vaunted label of "libertarian". But if one examines the platforms of Americastanian & Canuckistanian Libertarian parties, the "libertarian left" is left out.

 

[metis]

I never worked in a Chrysler plant, dude. You quoted Metis, not me. I am an advocate for new technology. I am an engineer.

Technology is a mixed bag. Nuclear power is another example of something that can be used or misused. I am not anti-technology, but I do believe, like so many other things, we need to use it wisely.

 

[Revoltingest]

What about in Franceistan ? Swedenistan and Norwayistan ?

They have hybrid economies, as do we Americanistanians. Even if none are strictly
"libertarian", any country can adopt some of our values. Shockingly, even the Dem &
Pub parties each lean our way a little in some areas (some members more than others).
Did I adequately address your post?

 

[Revoltingest]

And I am assuming that you fall in the area advocated by Thomas Piketty.

I prefer the Nolan Chart for its completeness, clarity, & terminology (compatible with current N Americastanian usage).
(It's easy to see where donkeys, elephants, penguins & others fit it.)

Source:
http://www.nolanchart.com/faq/faq8.php

 

[Revoltingest]

Parenthetical aside (avoiding politics) to explain the above post:
Our party Libertarian has had various mascots, including the Statue Of Liberty (common) & a porcupine (uncommon). But my favorite is (designed by Ann Carson in 1994)...