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 11-24-2018, 06:14 PM
 
8,350 posts, read 3,522,958 times
Reputation: 1595

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Still too small a notion. Where does massive loss of jobs to automation/AI fit in those boundaries? Basic Econ theory doesn't allow for a massive imbalance between labor, income and wealth except to hand-wave away the "excess"workers.
It is a massive notion since it says dollars are not a limit.

If we the people should so desire, we can have the money to create jobs where we want them and fire the robots. We could subsidize any of our industries to our hearts content. If we the people so desire. So far we either won't or haven't yet figured it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2018, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,470 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
It is a massive notion since it says dollars are not a limit.

If we the people should so desire, we can have the money to create jobs where we want them and fire the robots. We could subsidize any of our industries to our hearts content. If we the people so desire. So far we either won't or haven't yet figured it out.
Well, there's the gist of an idea in there but you still seem to be pushing around overly simplified elements by basic rules. AFAIK, there is no mainstream economic theory that allows for a system in which workers, labor income, production and profits are not a closed loop. Your solution is just to spend enormous amounts to buy/subsidize us back to a stable form of that loop - i.e., not really a solution at all.

I find it frustrating how these discussions can go on and on in the same small circles - "you can't do X because it will break Y and everyone knows that." We are entering a long era driven by a possibly permanent change that makes complete hash of basic capitalist economics, and there's less and less point in talking about, much less trying to implement "corrections" within this set of understandings.

The reality of wealth creation and distribution is a deck of cards. You can play dozens, if not hundreds of games with that same deck, but mainstream Econ argument persists in the notion that there is only gin rummy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2018, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,216 posts, read 13,385,577 times
Reputation: 14093
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
It is confusing how sending e-mails, administration jobs such as making reports and other intangible jobs that produce no tangible product are supposed to sustain 360 million people in 2030

I guess Health Care employment will rapidly increase but government already pays or subsidies through tax breaks nearly 2/3rds of all spending.

Government funds nearly two-thirds of U.S. health care costs: American Journal of Public Health study | Physicians for a National Health Program

It just seems how a Finance, Insurance and Real Estate economy with lots of government spending directly or indirectly is sustainable.
Oh, yes, Physicians for NAZI Health Program.

They are well known for skewing and falsifying data.

Your link is to a dead end. They probably withdrew the study, because the data was skewed or falsified.

So, you lost manufacturing jobs. That's not a big deal.

If another economy manufactures something better or cheaper than you can, then you should let them manufacture it, and shift your labor to something you can do better or cheaper. That's how resources come to be used efficiently and effectively, and everybody wins.

Your short-sighted short-term thinking is problematic.

Apparently, you've never owned or managed a business, because if you had, then you'd know that the quarterly report you have to file with the US Commerce Department takes about 750 labor hours to complete. And, that's just one of many reports that have to be filed with US government agencies, or State or local government agencies.

And, you are completely ignorant about compliance.

My uncle's company spent more than $1 Million a year on compliance. 14 people doing nothing but reading and surfing the internet, because that's what it takes to be compliant.

The US government publishes the Federal Register every two weeks, so you have read that to see if there are any current or proposed changes in federal laws, rules or regulations that may impact your business. And then you have to read a variety of federal and State case law digests to see what legal rulings and decisions have been made that might affect your business.

States, counties and municipalities do not publish anything like the Federal Register, so the only way you can know if they have enacted laws, rules or regulations, or made changes to laws, rules or regulations that impact your business is to search all 39,000+ web-sites to find out.

That way, if a particular city bans wooden pallets, you can order plastic pallets to deliver your goods so you don't get fined and penalized for using wooden pallets, which is what happened to my uncle's company, because they didn't discover that change in the law until after they had already been fined for using wooden pallets, but that's what happens when you have to search 39,000+ web-sites for counties and municipalities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Still too small a notion. Where does massive loss of jobs to automation/AI fit in those boundaries? Basic Econ theory doesn't allow for a massive imbalance between labor, income and wealth except to hand-wave away the "excess"workers.
There won't be a massive loss of jobs to automation/AI.

The rate of implementation of automation and AI will be so slow and occur over so many decades that job losses will be imperceptible, and what few workers are displaced will be absorbed into other jobs.

Where workers aren't absorbed, you'll just end up with fewer two-income households, like it was in the past, which didn't harm your economy.

And, since you didn't know, Americans aren't the only consumers on Earth.

Basic Economics Theory doesn't even address imbalances, because they are irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2018, 09:31 PM
 
8,350 posts, read 3,522,958 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Well, there's the gist of an idea in there but you still seem to be pushing around overly simplified elements by basic rules. AFAIK, there is no mainstream economic theory that allows for a system in which workers, labor income, production and profits are not a closed loop. Your solution is just to spend enormous amounts to buy/subsidize us back to a stable form of that loop - i.e., not really a solution at all.

I find it frustrating how these discussions can go on and on in the same small circles - "you can't do X because it will break Y and everyone knows that." We are entering a long era driven by a possibly permanent change that makes complete hash of basic capitalist economics, and there's less and less point in talking about, much less trying to implement "corrections" within this set of understandings.

The reality of wealth creation and distribution is a deck of cards. You can play dozens, if not hundreds of games with that same deck, but mainstream Econ argument persists in the notion that there is only gin rummy.
When the central gov't needs something big and quick, it can create the money to entice the private sector to do so. What that new money can do is employ new or more people and use new or unused resources to create more stuff, wealth, goods, whatever the gov't or we the people need. Enormous is relative. If you have to fight a war of survival you spend and create whatever it takes.

So don't get frustrated. The money will be there for the people when they finally realize the nature of their money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,470 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
There won't be a massive loss of jobs to automation/AI.

The rate of implementation of automation and AI will be so slow and occur over so many decades that job losses will be imperceptible, and what few workers are displaced will be absorbed into other jobs.

Where workers aren't absorbed, you'll just end up with fewer two-income households, like it was in the past, which didn't harm your economy.
Why, of course. It's never happened before, therefore it can't possibly happen and what seem to be completely revolutionary changes in workforce dynamics don't really exist, because Economics.

Thanks for a frameable example of completely circular, pompously theoretical, blinkered mainstream Econ blather.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,470 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
When the central gov't needs something big and quick, it can create the money to entice the private sector to do so. What that new money can do is employ new or more people and use new or unused resources to create more stuff, wealth, goods, whatever the gov't or we the people need. Enormous is relative. If you have to fight a war of survival you spend and create whatever it takes.
"Because in gin rummy, you can't win with a flush."

Do you understand that mainstream economics is a hierarchy of tautologies, with self-defined, self-reinforcing rules that are no more binding to reality (== the 52 cards) than the rules of a card game? That you can make unarguably logical constructions with its rules does not mean those constructions represent the only viewpoint or even a completely valid one.

"All money is snotrags. Snotrags have no value. Therefore, money has no value." - absolutely unarguable logic if you accept the rules and precepts. We have simply agreed to a more or less common set of economic tenets, not discovered bedrock laws of wealth. (Arguably, there are none such.)

We need a different economic theory and basis for the future. (None of) the current one(s) can(not) be bent to match the reality of a near-total disconnect between work (produce)-earn-consume production when "earn" is no longer a part of the cycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 01:12 PM
 
8,350 posts, read 3,522,958 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
"Because in gin rummy, you can't win with a flush."

Do you understand that mainstream economics is a hierarchy of tautologies, with self-defined, self-reinforcing rules that are no more binding to reality (== the 52 cards) than the rules of a card game? That you can make unarguably logical constructions with its rules does not mean those constructions represent the only viewpoint or even a completely valid one.

"All money is snotrags. Snotrags have no value. Therefore, money has no value." - absolutely unarguable logic if you accept the rules and precepts. We have simply agreed to a more or less common set of economic tenets, not discovered bedrock laws of wealth. (Arguably, there are none such.)

We need a different economic theory and basis for the future. (None of) the current one(s) can(not) be bent to match the reality of a near-total disconnect between work (produce)-earn-consume production when "earn" is no longer a part of the cycle.
Mainstream economics is not for me. I'm now more heterdox as I've looked more towards the operational realities of modern money the last 10-15 years.

An excellent book:

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding.../dp/1845429419

And Cullen Roche makes all less radical and more applicable.

https://www.pragcap.com/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,470 posts, read 1,184,330 times
Reputation: 4676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Mainstream economics is not for me. I'm now more heterdox as I've looked more towards the operational realities of modern money the last 10-15 years.
Varying slightly from Greenspan and Bernanke is not what I mean. Very little of economics discussion these days strays far from argument among Vatican cardinals. No matter how vehemently they argue alternate ideas and approaches, their positions become almost indistinguishable if you take two steps back.

I am saying we need to turn to a truly radical, rethought idea of national and global economics, one in which the current luminaries and their careful micro-stances about macro issues are as irrelevant as the chants of the Kalahari Bushmen to those cardinals - and vice versa.

Quote:
An excellent book:
Possibly. But anything subtitled "Full Employment" is obsolete and irrelevant on the face of it. A hundred years from now, it will be quite clear that we are on the initial slope of the era for which there was no longer a job for everyone, whether they wanted it or not. All economic babble about employing everyone should be stamped BS FROM 1955 and filed in the dead stacks.

Quote:
And Cullen Roche makes all less radical and more applicable.
Ah. A wild and crazy radical who, by god, wears a yellow tie with his pinstripe suit!

In a nutshell, only an economist who starts with the precept that a great majority of people will not have "jobs" is worth investigating. None of them who try to build the same Jenga stack with the same bricks are relevant, no matter how high and tottery they make it. "Radical" here means... radical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 04:02 PM
 
8,350 posts, read 3,522,958 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Varying slightly from Greenspan and Bernanke is not what I mean. Very little of economics discussion these days strays far from argument among Vatican cardinals. No matter how vehemently they argue alternate ideas and approaches, their positions become almost indistinguishable if you take two steps back.

I am saying we need to turn to a truly radical, rethought idea of national and global economics, one in which the current luminaries and their careful micro-stances about macro issues are as irrelevant as the chants of the Kalahari Bushmen to those cardinals - and vice versa.


Possibly. But anything subtitled "Full Employment" is obsolete and irrelevant on the face of it. A hundred years from now, it will be quite clear that we are on the initial slope of the era for which there was no longer a job for everyone, whether they wanted it or not. All economic babble about employing everyone should be stamped BS FROM 1955 and filed in the dead stacks.


Ah. A wild and crazy radical who, by god, wears a yellow tie with his pinstripe suit!

In a nutshell, only an economist who starts with the precept that a great majority of people will not have "jobs" is worth investigating. None of them who try to build the same Jenga stack with the same bricks are relevant, no matter how high and tottery they make it. "Radical" here means... radical.
The only thing Greenspan and Bernanke agree about modern money is that it can be created out of thin air. And there is no set dollar limit for any project.

I am not fully onboard with a central jobs guarantee program, as it is too complicated and too many moral hazards. But modern money can be created in order put to work any and everyone wanting or needing a job. And even how to fund those in the distant future without one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 05:53 PM
 
4,487 posts, read 5,361,641 times
Reputation: 4589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Apparently, you've never owned or managed a business, because if you had, then you'd know that the quarterly report you have to file with the US Commerce Department takes about 750 labor hours to complete. And, that's just one of many reports that have to be filed with US government agencies, or State or local government agencies.
Yikes I'm glad I don't do whatever it is you do haha I run my own company and no, I don't file anything with any US Commerce Department, whatsoever, let alone anything that takes 750 hours. I spend maybe 25-40 hours per year on accounting, that's about it, and I just do it myself.
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

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