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.
All the claims here are YOURS. So is all the responsibility to produce credible evidence to back up those claims. You have failed in that. The links, videos, and articles that so impress you here have all come from the Gloom-and-Doom Pop-Media Futurist Tripe-of-the-Month Club. Automation and associated irrational extrapolations to sky-is-falling nonsense are each as old as the hills. The latter of course have never amounted to anything useful, and they still don't.
Like citigroup?
I mean you can keep claiming that they are that...but no matter how much you claim the citigroup report is pop-media, it will never become reality.
Do you mean the Citi-snippet that was quoted by an AEI blogger whose own chief claim to fame is having been a Jeopardy winner back in 2002? This is not big league material. It wouldn't play well in rookie ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I mean you can keep claiming that they are that...but no matter how much you claim the citigroup report is pop-media, it will never become reality.
You've never read the report. Neither has your low-brow AEI blogger pal. The report is over 100 pages long, and as a survey and commentary on the history and impacts of technological change over even more than the 200 years I've generically cited, it reaches no judgments or prescriptive conclusions at all. It in fact unequivocally states that, "Unfortunately, economic history does not necessarily provide obvious guidance for predicting how technological progress will reshape labour markets in the future." The report was done by two Oxford University researchers. These are actual and legitimate sources, but by your crass misrepresentation of their work, you and your worthless AEI intermediary have demonstrated that you most definitely are not.
The big picture is that immigrants will effect the economic landscape depending on their personal attributes. If they are poorly educated, low or no skill, and don't speak english, then they will depress wages for low skill jobs and likely be a state burden. Their presence will increase poverty, and reduce per capita GDP. With time the negative effects will be reduced. Hopefully after a generation or two, they will be reduced to nil.
If they are skilled professionals and employed, they will depress wages in their profession but will increase per capita GDP. Most developed countries restrict immigration to professions where there is a domestic shortage.
Another consideration is whether you wish to have a a higher population. I personally think we have plenty of people in the US.
I don't know where you got the notion that wealth = contribution to society, but it is about as wrong as a notion can be. All that means is that they've gamed the system to put large sums of money in their own pockets. Unless they have done something special to enhance production or productivity, then this wealth they have "created" came out of our pockets.
Immigration does not depress wages the way that most people think. Immigrants actually create jobs. We need a larger population and much of the country is empty anyway. If we do not add more people we will be in trouble and we will not be able to fund our retirement system in the future.
On immigration, the Democratic Party is quite sensible. Hillary Clinton has just said something that will help the Democratic Party to win 2016. It's important to look at immigration from immigrants perspective. Most citizens have no idea what immigrants are going through. Look, immigrants to some of the worst jobs in this country and they are some of the most hard-working in America. I will take a hard-working immigrant any day over a lazy entitled nativeborn person. We need to offer amnesty. Another way to reduce the wage issue is by offering immigrants green cards early so that they do not become indentured employees in some cases. I personally think that we should make it much easier for international students who majored in stem with an advanced degree to get a green card. They are some of the most hard-working and intelligent people. And when you graduate from our universities, we should not give them a one-way flight ticket. We should keep them here.
In addition, most of these immigrants are family people. The respect the family and the raise intact families. hey bring good family practice and parenting to this country at a time when our birthright is plummeting. Now I am a social liberal. But I do recognize the need to have stable and prosperous families, to have enough children during hurt this country, and to cultivate an industrious culture. Since our own people are not doing it, we need to get immigrants here. Their culture and lifestyle are you in sharp contrast to the entitled post 1960s liberal culture. Immigrants who succeed in this country are often those who do not or have not internalized American culture. We will need a robust family culture and industrious strivers to keep this country afloat I meant global competition. And immigration and demographic change are necessary
Get out of foreign countries , I implore, mind you own business, Cut the defense budget in half. Keeping up military pride while bankrupting the nations resources to provide basic education for children is a horrendous trade off. Doing this will be sufficient to solve all budgetary issues. Raising taxes on the rich won't do anything.
Do you mean the Citi-snippet that was quoted by an AEI blogger whose own chief claim to fame is having been a Jeopardy winner back in 2002? This is not big league material. It wouldn't play well in rookie ball.
You've never read the report. Neither has your low-brow AEI blogger pal. The report is over 100 pages long, and as a survey and commentary on the history and impacts of technological change over even more than the 200 years I've generically cited, it reaches no judgments or prescriptive conclusions at all. It in fact unequivocally states that, "Unfortunately, economic history does not necessarily provide obvious guidance for predicting how technological progress will reshape labour markets in the future." The report was done by two Oxford University researchers. These are actual and legitimate sources, but by your crass misrepresentation of their work, you and your worthless AEI intermediary have demonstrated that you most definitely are not.
You make a false assumption about what I do or do not read, followed up by quoting a tiny portion of a report. And you start of with a ad hominen attack on the blogger because apparently thats easier then addressing the citigroup report.....which apparently you haven't read because it might challenge our assumptions. If you had read it you would have at least used some of the arguments in it to make your argument, instead of speaking without any understanding. Theres obviously no point in discussing this because you refuse to educate yourself, even when given a large amount of data.
Heres the key:
Quote:
Carl Frey, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment, and co-author of the report, explains a key trend: “So far the digital age has not created very many new jobs. According to our estimates only 0.5% of the US workforce is employed in industries that did not exist at the turn of the century.
You make a false assumption about what I do or do not read...
I remain quite convinced that neither you nor your pal at AEI has actually read the subject report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
...followed up by quoting a tiny portion of a report.
It's a bit lengthy to be posting here in its entirety. Suffice it to say once again that the report makes no judgments and draws no prescriptive conclusions at all. As already noted, it in fact unequivocally states that, "Unfortunately, economic history does not necessarily provide obvious guidance for predicting how technological progress will reshape labour markets in the future." This is an overt denial of what you have claimed for this report and of your thesis in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Theres obviously no point in discussing this because you refuse to educate yourself, even when given a large amount of data. Heres the key: Carl Frey, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment, and co-author of the report, explains a key trend: “So far the digital age has not created very many new jobs. According to our estimates only 0.5% of the US workforce is employed in industries that did not exist at the turn of the century.
The quotation alluded to above does not in fact appear anywhere in the report. Neither if it had would it have been in any way relevant to your claims that coming automation will wipe out democracy and a consumer society.
I remain quite convinced that neither you nor your pal at AEI has actually read the subject report.
It's a bit lengthy to be posting here in its entirety. Suffice it to say once again that the report makes no judgments and draws no prescriptive conclusions at all. As already noted, it in fact unequivocally states that, "Unfortunately, economic history does not necessarily provide obvious guidance for predicting how technological progress will reshape labour markets in the future." This is an overt denial of what you have claimed for this report and of your thesis in general.
The quotation alluded to above does not in fact appear anywhere in the report. Neither if it had would it have been in any way relevant to your claims that coming automation will wipe out democracy and a consumer society.
My apologies, here the link to that quote-its from the Oxford martin school itself-most likely a interview with the original authors that was done separately. Of course you COULD have just used google to search for that quote, and realized that instead of assuming I was making the quote up, but apparently that wouldn't have supported your insinuation that I was making stuff up.
Also speaking of making stuff up...where did I say it would wipe out democracy? While I do believe it will eventually wipe out a consumer driven capitalistic society, thats not the point, nor is it saying it will destroy our democratic processes....its almost like now you want to change the discussion.....wonder why
And the quote you use? You conveniently ignore the prior sentence.
Quote:
How will technological progress alter the occupational structure of labour markets in
the twenty-first century? Unfortunately, economic history does not necessarily
provide obvious guidance for predicting how technological progress will reshape
labour markets in the future.
In other words...This time its different.....which has been the point made over and over to you.
My apologies, here the link to that quote-its from the Oxford martin school itself-most likely a interview with the original authors that was done separately. Of course you COULD have just used google to search for that quote, and realized that instead of assuming I was making the quote up, but apparently that wouldn't have supported your insinuation that I was making stuff up.
LOL! MILES ahead of you. I know perfectly well where the quote came form. And where it DID NOT come from. I'm not the new guy here. ONCE AGAION -- Neither you nor your AEI phony had ever read the report that you proceeded so grossly to mischaracterize and misrepresent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Also speaking of making stuff up...where did I say it would wipe out democracy? While I do believe it will eventually wipe out a consumer driven capitalistic society, thats not the point, nor is it saying it will destroy our democratic processes....its almost like now you want to change the discussion.....wonder why
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Short-term memory glitch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
And the quote you use? You conveniently ignore the prior sentence.
In other words...This time its different.....which has been the point made over and over to you.
Double LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Actual statement: This time, you can't tell. Your failure here is now on a simply monumental scale.
LOL! MILES ahead of you. I know perfectly well where the quote came form. And where it DID NOT come from. I'm not the new guy here. ONCE AGAION -- Neither you nor your AEI phony had ever read the report that you proceeded so grossly to mischaracterize and misrepresent.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Short-term memory glitch?
Double LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Actual statement: This time, you can't tell. Your failure here is now on a simply monumental scale.
Apparently you are only able to make stuff up, and state your opinions.
But...facts or studies or information are beyond you on this. For not being the new guy....you do seem unable to present reasonable arguments.
Your failure here is now on a simply monumental scale.
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.
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.
