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 06-29-2017, 12:03 PM
 
6,256 posts, read 4,734,369 times
Reputation: 12853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Close enough.


Most of the in demand jobs are related to providing services to other people. Far too many.

If we have the nerve to really solve the 'glut of workers' problem we'll have a reduced need
for people to provide services as well. Prepare for it.
Fewer and fewer jobs are about agriculture. Fewer and fewer are now involved with manufacturing. Efficiency of production has made that true. I don't understand the idea that too many jobs are involved with "services". Why would we want to reduce those jobs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2017, 12:45 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,501 posts, read 62,182,463 times
Reputation: 32182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny View Post
I don't understand the idea that too many (remaining) jobs are involved with "services".
Because they don't actually produce any wealth... they just exchange cash.
The electrician pays the dentist who then pays the CPA who then pays the house painter.

Quote:
Why would we want to reduce (many of) those jobs?
1) Because they don't actually produce any wealth...
2) Because we will need even fewer of them as their supply of clients dries up.

Some additional reading on the topic: LINK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 12:52 PM
 
6,256 posts, read 4,734,369 times
Reputation: 12853
The notion that wealth is synonymous with physical goods is way out of date. Wealth is no longer a sack of rice, or even a chunk of gold. Bill Gates and Microsoft are clearly wealthy and yet produce no physical goods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 12:58 PM
 
306 posts, read 472,655 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Close enough.


Most of the in demand jobs are related to providing services to other people. Far too many.

If we have the nerve to really solve the 'glut of workers' problem we'll have a reduced need
for people to provide services as well. Prepare for it.

In multiple threads, you've suggested that reducing the population is economically necessary. In one thread awhile back, I believe you suggested eliminating the bottom quintile of Americans to free up the real estate and other resources their continued existence utilizes to make everything cheaper for the remaining population. I am wondering if you have thought through how killing all these people and disposal of their bodies would be achieved, and how you would get the other four quintiles on board with mass killing the bottom quintile without sparking a revolt or revolution. Also, how would the selection be made as the bottom quintile includes creatives and students who have potential to generate more than their short term income might suggest... one year low income or culling, two years? And if a more productive (in your opinion) member of society became injured and fell into the bottom quintile, would they too be culled? If you were deemed to be of low value, would you yourself submit to culling for the "greater good?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 01:27 PM
 
10,060 posts, read 4,665,478 times
Reputation: 15302
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Because they don't actually produce any wealth... they just exchange cash.
The electrician pays the dentist who then pays the CPA who then pays the house painter.

1) Because they don't actually produce any wealth...
2) Because we will need even fewer of them as their supply of clients dries up.

Some additional reading on the topic: LINK
how is this different than what you call "manufacturing" jobs?

laborer produces an item who pays a store to sell it who pays a CPA....?

laborer at the end of the day is still providing a service, one which service is no longer required due to robotics

the "item" is still being "manufactured", it's the service of the laborer that isn't needed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 03:41 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,501 posts, read 62,182,463 times
Reputation: 32182
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarite View Post
In multiple threads, you've suggested that reducing the population is economically necessary.
I have. In several threads and from several perspectives. More critically... not allowing that demographic to continue to produce
replacement workers for jobs we no longer have NOW... let alone what we won't have in decades to come.

Quote:
In one thread awhile back, I believe you suggested eliminating the bottom quintile of Americans
to free up the real estate and other resources their continued existence utilizes
to make everything cheaper for the remaining population.
Nope. I've never said "eliminating" or the rest of your conclusion/interpretation.

Quote:
I am wondering if you have thought through how killing all these people
and disposal of their bodies would be achieved
I've never said any such thing and take offense that you would suggest that I did.
If that is what you read into what was said... then that's all on you.
---

Maybe you should do some thread searches and read what was actually said.
The specific phrasing, the context, etc.

Last edited by MrRational; 06-29-2017 at 04:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 03:48 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,501 posts, read 62,182,463 times
Reputation: 32182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny View Post
The notion that wealth is (exclusive to) physical goods is way out of date. .
And if I had said such you might have an argument.

The concern here, as with most conflicts, is about scale and proportion.
When the, lets call them intangible assets tail began wagging the GNP dog...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 06:50 PM
 
6,256 posts, read 4,734,369 times
Reputation: 12853
Our economy is all about what you call intangible and services.


Those would include banking, restaurants and lodging, healthcare, science, R&D, management, sales, accounting, billing, teaching, counseling and advising, financial management, architecture, landscaping, engineering, mathematical and computational sciences, writing, sports and theatrical and artistic presentations, music, informational and library sciences, veterinary, social work, road and air traffic control, urban planning, and on and on.


Certainly we will always have a need for construction and the trades. We need farmers and miners and ranchers. Much of the demand has been shrinking as more efficient methods of production are being used. What you call intangibles are growing in importance and will employ the vast majority of the population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 04:20 PM
 
1,293 posts, read 690,577 times
Reputation: 352
Geezerrunner, our federal minimum wage has NEVER been net detrimental to our USA’s economic or social wellbeing. I’m unaware of laws similar to USA’s minimum rate laws having ever been net detrimental to any other nations.
I’m among those advocating our minimum wage rate be annually monitored and updated when necessary to retain its purchasing power. USA’s Social Security retirement benefits pegged to a cost-price index number successfully retains their purchasing powers.

[Many states refrain from enacting state minimum to exceed the federal minimum rate. State and their local chambers of commerce often must bid against each other to induce enterprise facilities be established and/or expanded and/or retained within the states’ jurisdictions. To the extent that enterprises facilities’ proximity to their customers, and/or their suppliers, are of greater advantage, a location’s geographic position rather than the location’s local labor prices may be of greater importance. That’s why for differing industries, the price advantages of facilities within higher and lower wage bordering states so much more or less differ dependent upon their distances from their shared borders. For most retailers and service industries not located near the border of an adjoining low wage state, their enterprise’s states higher wages are not of significant comparative disadvantage.

Good produced within USA’s lower wage states are at price advantage to our higher wage states. But USA enterprises that compete or aspire to compete with products produced by lower wage foreign nations are similarly at price disadvantage. USA’s chronic annual trade deficits are detrimental to our GDP and numbers of jobs. I’m a proponent of the international trade policy described within the Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” which is applicable to fruits, vegetables, meats, grains, manufactured goods such as chemicals, drugs, and packaged groceries].

Higher minimum rate accelerates automation. Lesser per-unit production costs and/or other improvements due to automation have been net beneficial to our nation.
To the extent lesser minimum rate delays or otherwise hinders automation in the USA, those lesser rates are additionally net detrimental to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

Those that believe USA’s trade deficits are of less significance because “automated production of manufactured goods requires less workers” fail to appreciate USA’s chronic annual trade deficits’ net detrimental effects upon USA’s GDP and numbers of jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2017, 06:42 AM
 
12,705 posts, read 9,975,776 times
Reputation: 9515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerrunner View Post
We all want to encourage industries to stay in our own town and provide jobs to local residents, and we all want to encourage companies to build new factories near where we live. By doing so they hire local people who pay taxes, they help support other local businesses, and they pay taxes to municipal and other levels of government.

To encourage new companies to establish plants locally or existing companies to remain it is common for various levels of government to provide tax incentives or direct financial incentives.

But in many industries more and more processes are being automated and robots replacing human workers to improve quality and lower manufacturing costs so that it becomes viable not to manufacture in another country with lower labour costs.

But the robots are not paying income tax, or rather the companies that increase their level of automation do not pay extra taxes when workers are laid off and replaced by robots.
So we have more unemployed people being supported by the government which also gave tax breaks to keep the factory. The robots obviously do not eat at local restaurants or buy clothes or furniture in local stores, so they do not support other businesses in the area. This seems likely to be an increasing problem in the future.

In addition to manufacturing it seems that some fairly low-paid jobs in retail are being lost to either on-line commerce or self check out equipment which I see a lot now in supermarkets, Home Depot and other retailers, and tellers are being replaced by ATM's and on-line banking.

So the issue is that a larger and larger percentage of the population seems likely to be almost permanently unemployed. Unemployment insurance is designed to provide a short term solution until they find another job, not to allow a reasonable level of income for them over many years, and possibly a lifetime without a job.

If government incentives are tied to maintaining a certain level of employment then they are forcing the factory not to modernize, and not to become efficient enough to compete in an open market.
How do we get the robots to pay taxes?
How can they pay taxes without having an income (that is, getting paid)? We pay the owners of the robots or the makers, not the robots themselves.

What you propose would require that robots have property rights, of sorts. And if we recognize such rights, then do we also say that a non-functional robot is entitled to a supply of tasty electricity? What do we mean when we say a robot has money that belongs to it? If we deny the robots the right to "spend" money on electricity or "healthcare" (technical support), in what sense do the robots own property? You might argue that the robots are not sentient, but there are some humans that are also not sentient, such as those in a PVS or long-term coma. Are we required to act in the robots' best interest when giving technical support, by analogy to the comatose patient?

It is far from clear that anyone has worked out a good philosophy of robots' property rights, or indeed of robot rights in general. Thus your question of making robots pay "taxes" is, at its base, ill-posed.

Last edited by ncole1; 07-04-2017 at 06:53 AM..
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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