patrick.net

monkframe says

I had to laugh at a story in the Mercury News, wherein they reported that the fall in the birthrate because of the economic collapse may "please some activists" but is "bad for the economy."

They say that because decline in population could mean decline in GDP. That's why some people say we shouldn't use overall GDP as a measure, but rather GDP per head or something like that.

thomaswong.1986 says

They still typed on a word processor.. like a WANG wp for their manager.

Last I checked typists are now called Administrative Executives.

They are still around...

Not really.

When I was in grade school my father worked as an engineer and had a secretary he shared with a few other people.

As an adult working as an engineer I need to do all my own typing.

Only executives get assistants these days which implies the positions are much less numerous.

Miike says

want to raise minimum wage? Here you go...

It does not matter what the minimum wage is, machines will always be cheaper. Any job that can be automated out of existence will be regardless of the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage does not result in jobs being automated. Automation is entirely determined by what is practical using the current level of technology.

However, one can make a damn good case for a minimum guaranteed income from the profits of automation, which essentially all of society has paid for over countless generations.

Bellingham Bill says

Reality says

When people have more money left over in their pockets because necessities get cheaper, they have money to

bid up their cost of housing and other goods & services with inelastic demand and monopolistic suppliers.

"Inelastic demand" means demand that is much affected by price change. You probably meant "inelastic supply." In any case, technological changes have profound effect on not only the type of jobs but also what you consider "inelastic supply" and "monopolistic suppliers":

During the same time frame that turned into 80% of the population from farming into doing more interesting jobs that did not exist before, the following took place drastically increased housing supply:

1. Elevators in mid to late 19th century, enabling buildings more than half a dozen stories;

2. canals bringing food from the midwest rendering farming jobs unprofitable in Manhattan also made the same land available for more houses and residential development;

3. trains enabled the start of commute to Long Island;

4. subways and cars making commute to Long Island and parts of Connecticut convenient;

5. Let's also not forget the bridges and tunnels bringing vast supply of housing to people who want to work in Manhattan but can commute from outside. Ironically, it's the government's own rapacious toll collecting that keeps the Manhattan price premium in place;

futuresmc says

Back then technology couldn't adapt faster than humans could retool for a new profession. Now it can and does. Any new job created will be obsolete within a decade at best. Where are people supposed to find the money for five or six retraining educations in a lifetime and still buy a home? Face it, we are looking at a new world where Moore's Law has disenfranchised too many working people and globalization picks off even more. We need to build a system where survival isn't based on being able to get a job or have the seed capital to start a new one. Otherwise you are looking at mass poverty as technology makes more and more workers redundant and unemployable in any profession for more than a few months at a stretch.

I have fundamentally changed my own profession thrice in the past two decades. I don't remember paying a dime in formal education to do any of that myself. In fact, when I really needed helpers to scale my business, I had to train new people myself. By the time the universities were churning out graduates in the field by the thousands each year, I knew it was time to move on to a different field altogether.

There are only 3 ways of survival at decent living standards:

1. rendering a useful service to others in peaceful exchange for the fruits of their labors; for we can not maintain our current standards of living without division of labor;

2. having capital saved up (or gifted) and capable of living off it; this way of living is actually more feasible in a stagnant society instead of a dynamic one;

3. looting. You, sir, sound like advocating looting.

Dan8267 says

It does not matter what the minimum wage is, machines will always be cheaper. Any job that can be automated out of existence will be regardless of the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage does not result in jobs being automated. Automation is entirely determined by what is practical using the current level of technology.

Hopefully almost all jobs known today will be automated at some point in the future, so that people can move onto more interesting jobs. That's just human progress. Raising minimum wages do have an effect on how soon those jobs get replaced by robots. It is not the end result that we live for (do you live in order to die?); life is a process.

However, one can make a damn good case for a minimum guaranteed income from the profits of automation, which essentially all of society has paid for over countless generations.

So, if we decide to share a cake, I eat my slice, then I pay you $5 to buy your slice, after I eat that slice too, can i have my $5 back from you as well? I mean, didn't "we" pay for the cake and earn that $5 at some point between the two of us?

Who owns which capital is a result of numerous transactions of historical significance. Wiping out all book keeping and claiming everything belongs to everyone . . . well, we know what that led to. Never mind whether you believe in the sanctity of private property, the practical result is that the disincentive to produce and make economical decisions would plunge the whole society into famine and war.

corntrollio says

monkframe says

I had to laugh at a story in the Mercury News, wherein they reported that the fall in the birthrate because of the economic collapse may "please some activists" but is "bad for the economy."

They say that because decline in population could mean decline in GDP. That's why some people say we shouldn't use overall GDP as a measure, but rather GDP per head or something like that.

There is also the issue the political class having taken on huge "public debt" in the name of future generations. So if the population decline, the future generation would have a very hard time paying it back . . . leading to generational warfare.

CL says

We should ban technology. Ever since we've been using it, workers have been displaced!

How will we log onto Patnet and curse each other out? We could use pigeons.

Bellingham Bill says

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=Apc

is the divergence between real GDP (red) and retail employment (blue)

1948 = 100.

Shows real GDP is 30% greater than 2000, yet retail employment is the same.

Productivity! If you need a job in this country, FUCK YOU, you should have chosen your parents better.

Or you could try to discover what your fellow men (and women) want, and try to anticipate their needs and wants, instead of wasting all your time bitching about your life being unfair. My parents probably made far less money than your parents did when I was born.

Dan8267 says

Miike says

want to raise minimum wage? Here you go...

It does not matter what the minimum wage is, machines will always be cheaper. Any job that can be automated out of existence will be regardless of the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage does not result in jobs being automated. Automation is entirely determined by what is practical using the current level of technology.

However, one can make a damn good case for a minimum guaranteed income from the profits of automation, which essentially all of society has paid for over countless generations.

Sooner or later all jobs requiring no thinking will be replaced by technology. If you raise the minimum wage too high, too quickly, you end up speeding up the inevitable.

Bellingham Bill says

one, housing isn't consumed it's just occupied and the rent is the cost of excluding other people from the leased housing good itself.

You can say the same thing about food: the fecal matter after you digest the food will be good organic fertilizer after some time for more food production. There is a reason why rental unit-time is considered highly perishable goods: time is of the essence, as written in most business contracts. Time value is of critical importance when large amount of capital is involved. That's also why QE is ruining the economy, as it messes up time value in business/employment decisions. Too many of the younger generation are facing the prospects of smoking pot in mom's basement as alternative to productive use of their time; we had the same thing happening in the 1970's, another period of FED mass money printing.

clambo says

As labor costs rise, people will find ways to reduce the cost of labor.

Who will eat the crap food they make? Only the lower middle class and poor eat fast food anyway...if they don't have jobs... they are cutting their own share of the pie!

Oh wait.. government EBT... soon that's all they'll accept at McD's.

Eventually Technology will render Capitalism obsolete... It already is stressing the foundations of traditional capitalism. Those that hold fast to capitalism like an economic religion, should learn societies evolve and new economic theories come into play eventually.

If we harness the power of Fusion energy before we destroy ourselves and our planet... then we will DEFINITELY need a new economic system. When you can run your automobile off an banana peel and some refuse like in Back To The Future.. it changes society in ways unimaginable.

Strategist says

Sooner or later all jobs requiring no thinking will be replaced by technology. If you raise the minimum wage too high, too quickly, you end up speeding up the inevitable.

As long as we socialize the profits of automation, that's a good thing. The only bad thing is allowing a few "owner" to get all the profits of automation, especially when those owners didn't contribute anything to the building of the automation. They designed no circuits, wrote no software, built no robots, fabricated no chips.

The problem with capitalism is that it takes from the wealth producers (engineers and other workers) to give to non-producers (owners and executives). Any system based on that transfer will eventually collapse.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Eventually Technology will render Capitalism obsolete...

I would argue it already has. Capitalism, like the automobile, is a technology that should have been phased out in the 20th century.

"Owner" is the one who holds the bag when a specific piece of capital is rendered obsolete by advancing technology.

The constant effort to keep capital up-to-date is the job of the owners and executives.

Dan, if you are tired of writing codes, you can start your own business and take your own chances. Then you don't have to worry about someone else taking the fruits of your labor; that is, besides the taxman.

Dan8267 says

BoomAndBustCycle says

Eventually Technology will render Capitalism obsolete...

I would argue it already has. Capitalism, like the automobile, is a technology that should have been phased out in the 20th century.

They tried very hard in the 20th century: first Communism, then Fascism, then a soft-peddling collectivism in the name of social democracy. Human societies go through cycles of liberty, prosperity, tyranny, privation then back to struggle for liberty again. That cycle was noticed as early as 2000+ years ago by the ancient Greeks and Romans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos

Reality says

They tried very hard in the 20th century:

The fact that you equate capitalism with liberty demonstrates that economics is a religion to you. If anything, capitalism harms liberty as evident by the open system of bribery in our country we call lobbying.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

They tried very hard in the 20th century:

The fact that you equate capitalism with liberty demonstrates that economics is a religion to you. If anything, capitalism harms liberty as evident by the open system of bribery in our country we call lobbying.

LOL. Political privileges are feudalism/socialism, not capitalism.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Sooner or later all jobs requiring no thinking will be replaced by technology. If you raise the minimum wage too high, too quickly, you end up speeding up the inevitable.

As long as we socialize the profits of automation, that's a good thing. The only bad thing is allowing a few "owner" to get all the profits of automation, especially when those owners didn't contribute anything to the building of the automation. They designed no circuits, wrote no software, built no robots, fabricated no chips.

Progressive taxation does just that. A 7 year old orphan should and is provided with all the basic needs including education and healthcare. That money mostly comes from those who make the most. A 7 year old orphan in an African country gets literally nothing.
We all benefit with a good economy and an economic system that produces wealth.