U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2013, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,467 posts, read 15,078,484 times
Reputation: 11932

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_row View Post
It is not that we are over paid it is that they are way underpaid. Bring everyone up rather than take the top down.
But the debt load is constant and going up. The cost of servicing that debt is a real drag on the economy. It is pushing less profitable things out like making stuff.
Wage deflation. It really bites on the economy. And there goes the tax base. We need higher wages to pay for the obligations we have.
If they were underpaid, there wouldn't be an oversupply of labor. That's how supply and demand works... if we're operating on some other theory of labor other than that used by economic theory, I don't really have much comment. Marx looks at the socially necessary labor time, or simply the man hours. But that doesn't directly address what you're talking about either. Marx would simply say there was over production and hence too many labor hours were used relative to what the economy wanted.

Rather than inflate wages which are already too high to pay for the debt obligations, it's far more efficient to simply default on debt obligations and adjust current consumption going forward to avoid taking on more debt than can be met in the future. It's a lot harder to get credit today than it was in 2005. Inflating wages to devalue current debts by devaluing the currency simply is not a good way to go about it. Many people are perfectly capable of handling their debt obligations, others made stupid choices and took on more than they could handle. We already have bankruptcy that handles those cases where people are unable to meet their obligations anyway. Rather than blanket rewarding reckless behavior of a few and blanket punishment of all lenders, better to just use bankruptcy. Reckless lending and borrowing is punished. Lenders lose some of the principal they lent, and borrowers have their credit rating trashed and assets they couldn't afford repossessed where applicable. Non-reckless lenders are borrowers are not punished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2013, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,467 posts, read 15,078,484 times
Reputation: 11932
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
We can't find anything useful for these people to do? If we are going to have so many people sitting around then why this, as just one example.

Civil Engineers Likely to Grade U.S. Infrastructure `D' - Bloomberg

There is something else going on. The worker surplus is not rotating.
At some point, no. If a person has no skill beyond loading an item onto an assembly line, a job now done by robotics, what exactly are they going to do? Perhaps they could be retrained to do something else that's actually useful in the current economy, but certainly not all of them. There aren't that many jobs that pay ~35-50k (with benefits, depending on the benefit package) for people with minimal to no job skills. You're talking about significant training.

There's also the strong possibility that we've simply overbuilt infrastructure. Part of the reason we aren't maintaining it is because don't have the revenue to. The larger part is that the revenue that could be used to maintain it is being spent on other things... welfare, foreign wars, building new infrastructure because the current system of federal matching funds encourages building more, more, more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 10:17 PM
 
621 posts, read 547,859 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
If they were underpaid, there wouldn't be an oversupply of labor.
Wrong. They aren't being paid enough to buy the products they are making.


There are two workable production models. Make a small number of products for the rich or make a large number of products for everyone else.


What we have now is making a large number of products for the (by the world's standards) rich. This is not long term sustainable.


They aren't being paid enough to buy the products they are making. So they aren't in the market for those products. So there isn't enough work for those that get paid enough to buy those products. The work is going where the labor cost is low. But with that the market is contracting. Pay the new workers enough and the market expands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
That's how supply and demand works... if we're operating on some other theory of labor other than that used by economic theory, I don't really have much comment.
Two labor pools. One makes 100 times what the other one does, the cheap one is three times as large as the expensive one. If you start moving jobs between the two pools from the expensive to the cheap one you instantly have an over supply of labor. You went from having a labor utilization of 100% to a labor utilization of 25%. Only 25% of the people are making full wages. So those wages are going to drop. Too many workers for too few good paying jobs. Now if you inflate the wages of the cheap labor market you get closer to full utilization of the workforce. You also expand the market for the goods produced and everyone has work to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Marx looks at the socially necessary labor time, or simply the man hours. But that doesn't directly address what you're talking about either. Marx would simply say there was over production and hence too many labor hours were used relative to what the economy wanted.

Rather than inflate wages which are already too high to pay for the debt obligations, it's far more efficient to simply default on debt obligations and adjust current consumption going forward to avoid taking on more debt than can be met in the future.
Now the problem with that. The US national Debt is the world's reserve currency. We can't default on that debt. We can turn it into cash and spend it. Debt destruction is counter to my personal agenda. I want a job. And I don't want to entirely destroy my Mom's savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It's a lot harder to get credit today than it was in 2005. Inflating wages to devalue current debts by devaluing the currency simply is not a good way to go about it. Many people are perfectly capable of handling their debt obligations, others made stupid choices and took on more than they could handle. We already have bankruptcy that handles those cases where people are unable to meet their obligations anyway.
We are at close to 400% of GDP as total debt in the US. Health is at 150%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Rather than blanket rewarding reckless behavior of a few and blanket punishment of all lenders, better to just use bankruptcy. Reckless lending and borrowing is punished. Lenders lose some of the principal they lent, and borrowers have their credit rating trashed and assets they couldn't afford repossessed where applicable. Non-reckless lenders are borrowers are not punished.
The amount of debt that needs to be defaulted on is too large. It would bring on system crash. That would punish everyone.



On an aside. We have those people that are headed into retirement. They need every available worker working hard to support them. Default on that obligation? Morally I'm strongly apposed to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,467 posts, read 15,078,484 times
Reputation: 11932
Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_row View Post
Wrong. They aren't being paid enough to buy the products they are making.
And? I have a friend who builds helicopters that start around $2 million. All workers therefore must make, what, $500,000? a year by your standard.

Quote:
On an aside. We have those people that are headed into retirement. They need every available worker working hard to support them. Default on that obligation? Morally I'm strongly apposed to that.
[/quote]
Depends. If a hypothetical retiree invested entirely in bonds in a company that went bankrupt, yes they would be defaulted on. They'd get something through the bankruptcy process, but not what they were owed by the company they lent money to. Can't fix stupid. As far as social security, there's enough of a heads-up that that is going bust that if people who are 20 years out haven't planned on getting less than what is currently being promised... well, again, can't fix stupid. I do think we should address that now rather than later by a combination of benefit cuts and increased taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 04:12 AM
 
4,174 posts, read 2,788,828 times
Reputation: 2629
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire View Post
Oversupply of available labor is going to be an issue no matter what. During the 90's, major corporations figured out it was more profitable to replace people with robots. Today, those robots are considerably cheaper, leading to more robots replacing people. You can buy a robotic arm to load machinery for about 27K, which is cheaper than paying an American 27K, plus taxes and benefits.

It's getting to the point where American workers aren't loosing the work to China, as the work from China is slowly brought back to America to be done by armies of robots. This will put a few Americans back to work, and put thousands, and eventually hundreds of thousands of Chinese out of work. Slowly thereafter, corporations will focus on how to widdle down the last few workers in the equation.
It doesn't help the situation if those robotic workplaces of the future are built and serviced by foreign entities.

It also does not help the manufacturers if there is no one who can afford to buy their products. Robots need neither smartphones, nor new shoes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 05:07 AM
 
621 posts, read 547,859 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
And? I have a friend who builds helicopters that start around $2 million. All workers therefore must make, what, $500,000? a year by your standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_row View Post
There are two workable production models. Make a small number of products for the rich or make a large number of products for everyone else.
That one is my answer to what you just said. What is the production of helicopters like? If we were making them like cars then the price of them would be less and the pay would have to be more. Otherwise the model doesn't work long term.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Depends. If a hypothetical retiree invested entirely in bonds in a company that went bankrupt, yes they would be defaulted on. They'd get something through the bankruptcy process, but not what they were owed by the company they lent money to. Can't fix stupid. As far as social security, there's enough of a heads-up that that is going bust that if people who are 20 years out haven't planned on getting less than what is currently being promised... well, again, can't fix stupid. I do think we should address that now rather than later by a combination of benefit cuts and increased taxes.
The taxes were raise back in the 1980's. Then the income tax was dropped. Or vice versa. That was part of the wealth transfer from the middle to the rich. Upping the income tax far enough to balance the budget and run a surplus to cover the promised SS payouts sounds fare to me. Inflating away the current debts is what I'm after as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 05:19 AM
 
4,174 posts, read 2,788,828 times
Reputation: 2629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
And? I have a friend who builds helicopters that start around $2 million. All workers therefore must make, what, $500,000? a year by your standard.
No, but it might be good if their employees could even afford a ride in one of those helicopters. There is no denying that a well paid employee translates to a well-heeled customer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 05:40 AM
 
621 posts, read 547,859 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
... if we're operating on some other theory of labor other than that used by economic theory, I don't really have much comment. Marx looks at the socially necessary labor time, or simply the man hours. But that doesn't directly address what you're talking about either. Marx would simply say there was over production and hence too many labor hours were used relative to what the economy wanted.
It looks like you are trying to figure out where I'm coming from. What school of thought. I have largely figured out economics for myself. I want full employment. I want long term economic health. We have a very hard time economically coming our way. What kind of pain we have is up to us. That we are going to have pain is unavoidable.


We can have the pain of high unemployment and hyper inflation at the same time. This is several years out. Or we can have full employment and hyperinflation. The latter is far less painful than the former.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 09:39 AM
 
17,750 posts, read 15,047,446 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
At some point, no.
Well then its speculative, and we can move on to fancy what else may come to pass.


Quote:
If a person has no skill beyond loading an item onto an assembly line, a job now done by robotics, what exactly are they going to do? Perhaps they could be retrained to do something else that's actually useful in the current economy, but certainly not all of them. There aren't that many jobs that pay ~35-50k (with benefits, depending on the benefit package) for people with minimal to no job skills. You're talking about significant training.



There's also the strong possibility that we've simply overbuilt infrastructure. Part of the reason we aren't maintaining it is because don't have the revenue to. The larger part is that the revenue that could be used to maintain it is being spent on other things... welfare, foreign wars, building new infrastructure because the current system of federal matching funds encourages building more, more, more.
This is a more tangible point you make.
We certainly may have mis-allocated infrastructure given its not easy to define it during rapid changes, but we have left this sort of planning to it seems no one. The value of a certain highway, for example, is rather dependent on oil prices and fuel efficiencies among other things. $1 a gallon makes it infrastructure while $10 a gallon makes it a white elephant( see North Korea highway system)


Now in my mind I believe we are maintaining it as an infrastructure in all the wrong ways. Perhaps we do have some white elephants that are not apparent as we desperately try to keep them in the fossil fuel cost range to consider them infrastructure. .

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 01:21 PM
 
9,858 posts, read 13,955,066 times
Reputation: 10743
Because it's all controlled from a central dispatch, that owns USA and virtually all European countries?

[SIZE=+0] It was soon recognized by those in positions of power that the same methods might be useful for totally controlling a society. But better tools were necessary.
Social engineering (the analysis and automation of a society) requires the correlation of great amounts of constantly changing economic information (data), so a high-speed computerized data-processing system was necessary which could race ahead of the society and predict when society would arrive for capitulation.
Relay computers were to slow, but the electronic computer, invented in 1946 by J. Presper Eckert and John W. Mauchly, filled the bill.
The next breakthrough was the development of the simplex method of linear programming in 1947 by the mathematician George B. Dantzig.
Then in 1948, the transistor, invented by J. Bardeen, W.H. Brattain, and W. Shockley, promised great expansion of the computer field by reducing space and power requirements.
With these three inventions under their direction, those in positions of power strongly suspected that it was possible for them to control the whole world with the push of a button.
Immediately, the Rockefeller Foundation got in on the ground floor by making a four-year grant to Harvard College, funding the Harvard Economic Research Project for the study of the structure of the American Economy. One year later, in 1949, The United States Air Force joined in.
In 1952 the grant period terminated, and a high-level meeting of the Elite was held to determine the next phase of social operations research. The Harvard project had been very fruitful, as is borne out by the publication of some of its results in 1953 suggesting the feasibility of economic (social) engineering. (Studies in the Structure of the American Economy - copyright 1953 by Wassily Leontief, International Science Press Inc., White Plains, New York).
Engineered in the last half of the decade of the 1940's, the new Quiet War machine stood, so to speak, in sparkling gold-plated hardware on the showroom floor by 1954.
With the creation of the maser in 1954, the promise of unlocking unlimited sources of fusion atomic energy from the heavy hydrogen in sea water and the consequent availability of unlimited social power was a possibility only decades away.
The combination was irresistible.
The Quiet War was quietly declared by the International Elite at a meeting held in 1954.
Although the silent weapons system was nearly exposed 13 years later, the evolution of the new weapon-system has never suffered any major setbacks.



[/SIZE]
Descriptive Introduction of the Silent Weapon

Everything that is expected from an ordinary weapon is expected from a silent weapon by its creators, but only in its own manner of functioning. It shoots situations, instead of bullets; propelled by data processing, instead of chemical reaction (explosion); originating from bits of data, instead of grains of gunpowder; from a computer, instead of a gun; operated by a computer programmer, instead of a marksman; under the orders of a banking magnate, instead of a military general.
It makes no obvious explosive noises, causes no obvious physical or mental injuries, and does not obviously interfere with anyone's daily social life.
Yet it makes an unmistakable "noise," causes unmistakable physical and mental damage, and unmistakably interferes with the daily social life, i.e., unmistakable to a trained observer, one who knows what to look for.
The public cannot comprehend this weapon, and therefore cannot believe that they are being attacked and subdued by a weapon.
The public might instinctively feel that something is wrong, but that is because of the technical nature of the silent weapon, they cannot express their feeling in a rational way, or handle the problem with intelligence. Therefore, they do not know how to cry for help, and do not know how to associate with others to defend themselves against it.
When a silent weapon is applied gradually, the public adjusts/adapts to its presence and learns to tolerate its encroachment on their lives until the pressure (psychological via economic) becomes too great and they crack up.
Therefore, the silent weapon is a type of biological warfare. It attacks the vitality, options, and mobility of the individuals of a society by knowing, understanding, manipulating, and attacking their sources of natural and social energy, and their physical, mental, and emotional strengths and weaknesses.

[SIZE=+0]Application in Economics

To use this method of airframe shock testing in economic engineering, the prices of commodities are shocked, and the public consumer reaction is monitored. The resulting echoes of the economic shock are interpreted theoretically by computers and the psycho-economic structure of the economy is thus discovered. It is by this process that partial differential and difference matrices are discovered that define the family household and make possible its evaluation as an economic industry (dissipative consumer structure). Then the response of the household to future shocks can be predicted and manipulated, and society becomes a well-regulated animal with its reins under the control of a sophisticated computer-regulated social energy bookkeeping system.
Eventually every individual element of the structure comes under computer control through a knowledge of personal preferences, such knowledge guaranteed by computer association of consumer preferences (universal product code, UPC; zebra-striped pricing codes on packages) with identified consumers (identified via association with the use of a credit card and later a permanent "tattooed" body number invisible under normal ambient illumination).



[SIZE=+0]http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top