The Real Problem with the Economy Is...

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

iPods and digital delivery systems are replacing those jobs involved with producing, pressing, packaging, shipping, and selling physical media.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

Yes I agree with you that not all innovation creates efficiencies, but we are talking about the large number of them that do.

The internet and digitial media are totally economic innovations. They reduce the need for middlemen and physical media, and increase production on large scale while reducing the need for resources and labor. They are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

Yes I agree with you that not all innovation creates efficiencies, but we are talking about the large number of them that do.

The internet and digitial media are totally economic innovations. They reduce the need for middlemen and physical media, and increase production on large scale while reducing the need for resources and labor. They are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

The middlemen is far from being removed from the process by the internet. The most jobs that would have been lost is a few grocery boys. For every grocery boy who lost his job because of online shopping, 10 more network admins got a job. Many companies who would have never dreamed of having an IT staff now need one as in the modern market, you can't compete without some sort of web site.

As for media distribution, yeah, some jobs where lost. However, jobs gained (again) by network admins, on-site maintenance programmers, and media developers greatly outweighs the number of people that would pull a lever to stamp a CD, or watch as the machine rolls out a VHS tape. (Hey look, those are two jobs that didn't exist at all and were created by innovation without killing other jobs).

Again, what we are seeing is the death of unspecialized jobs, not the death of jobs in general. Personally, I think that is a good thing. Because of the nature of innovations, society as a whole has to either become more intelligent, or fall behind. It provides much less leeway to the lazy.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

iPods and digital delivery systems are replacing those jobs involved with producing, pressing, packaging, shipping, and selling physical media.

And it creates jobs for maintaining, monitoring, updating, and fixing the distribution system.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The real problem with the economy...is not that it doesn't need people anymore, but rather that the amount of labor relative to capital has increased dramatically almost overnight with the opening of the Indian, Mexican, and Chinese markets (about 2.6 billion people).

If as a result of innovation the cost of producing widgets decreases, then money--human effort--that would otherwise be spent on producing widgets is free to be spent on producing something else which would employ people to do other things. Given a fixed amount of population, innovation and real productivity gains should result in a higher standard of living for the populace--things like the price of housing, health care, and automobiles should decrease relative to people's purchasing power. However, people are having difficulty affording these things which is why we're even discussing this in the first place. Our problem is not innovation and more automated production; that is just a cover that free market ideologues are using to keep from having to acknowledge global labor arbitrage.

What we are seeing is not the result of productivity increases but rather global labor arbitrage. As a result of an almost overnight explosion in the supply of labor, the price point--wages or standard of living afforded by purchasing power--has decreased resulting in unemployment in the United States and with the owners of offshored capital enjoying higher profit margins.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have thought much of this before. It seems to be doing weird things as manufacturing is smaller and smaller. I think in the future once so much is automated and roboticized and the infrastructure is so vast that a great number of people can effectively live indefinitely without work (think welfare, but a much higher quality of life), it will be ok to have huge unemployment, or pitifully low-employed people who do nothing they really need to be doing (Japan has some jobs like this). In the meantime technology is changing what people do and quickly.

Instead of having huge amounts of people unemployed, perhaps more people could be employed but work fewer hours per week, resulting in an increase in many people's standard of living.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

Yes I agree with you that not all innovation creates efficiencies, but we are talking about the large number of them that do.

The internet and digitial media are totally economic innovations. They reduce the need for middlemen and physical media, and increase production on large scale while reducing the need for resources and labor. They are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

The middlemen is far from being removed from the process by the internet. The most jobs that would have been lost is a few grocery boys. For every grocery boy who lost his job because of online shopping, 10 more network admins got a job. Many companies who would have never dreamed of having an IT staff now need one as in the modern market, you can't compete without some sort of web site.

As for media distribution, yeah, some jobs where lost. However, jobs gained (again) by network admins, on-site maintenance programmers, and media developers greatly outweighs the number of people that would pull a lever to stamp a CD, or watch as the machine rolls out a VHS tape. (Hey look, those are two jobs that didn't exist at all and were created by innovation without killing other jobs).

Again, what we are seeing is the death of unspecialized jobs, not the death of jobs in general. Personally, I think that is a good thing. Because of the nature of innovations, society as a whole has to either become more intelligent, or fall behind. It provides much less leeway to the lazy.

You are flat out crazy if you think that only a few grocery baggers have lost, or will lose, their jobs because of the internet. It is making entire career choices and industries (I'm looking at you cable & sat companies) obsolete. And we are smack in the middle of internet innovation. My argument is there is net loss of jobs long term, not that their isn't an increase short term during the implementation, because you're right, right now there likely is. It won't last.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

iPods and digital delivery systems are replacing those jobs involved with producing, pressing, packaging, shipping, and selling physical media.

And it creates jobs for maintaining, monitoring, updating, and fixing the distribution system.

Jobs that require more skill and thus have a higher barrier to entry.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

Yes I agree with you that not all innovation creates efficiencies, but we are talking about the large number of them that do.

The internet and digitial media are totally economic innovations. They reduce the need for middlemen and physical media, and increase production on large scale while reducing the need for resources and labor. They are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

The middlemen is far from being removed from the process by the internet. The most jobs that would have been lost is a few grocery boys. For every grocery boy who lost his job because of online shopping, 10 more network admins got a job. Many companies who would have never dreamed of having an IT staff now need one as in the modern market, you can't compete without some sort of web site.

As for media distribution, yeah, some jobs where lost. However, jobs gained (again) by network admins, on-site maintenance programmers, and media developers greatly outweighs the number of people that would pull a lever to stamp a CD, or watch as the machine rolls out a VHS tape. (Hey look, those are two jobs that didn't exist at all and were created by innovation without killing other jobs).

Again, what we are seeing is the death of unspecialized jobs, not the death of jobs in general. Personally, I think that is a good thing. Because of the nature of innovations, society as a whole has to either become more intelligent, or fall behind. It provides much less leeway to the lazy.

You are flat out crazy if you think that only a few grocery baggers have lost, or will lose, their jobs because of the internet. It is making entire career choices and industries (I'm looking at you cable & sat companies) obsolete. And we are smack in the middle of internet innovation. My argument is there is net loss of jobs long term, not that their isn't an increase short term during the implementation, because you're right, right now there likely is. It won't last.

All the jobs I mentioned are jobs that won't go away and that can't go away. Not "Installation time" jobs. You are flat out crazy if you think the industry will go away. Rather, it will take a new form (like it always has.) Sure, the Satellite broadcasting system may go cu-put because there is a cheaper way to do it. However, the cheaper way of the internet is just as complex as the broadcasting methods of satellites.

Cable is a great example of adaptation, the wires that once brought solely TV to the house soon will bring solely internet to a house. Transmission is transmission, it still has to happen and regardless of the form it takes, it will always take some sort of maintenance.

Look at the now dead vacuum tube industry. Yes, transistors killed off the vacuum tube. But in its death, they created Thousands upon Thousands of jobs for EE. Jobs that aren't going away any time soon. In its short lifetime, the semiconductor industry has vastly surpasses the vacuum tube industry in the number of jobs currently running.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

iPods and digital delivery systems are replacing those jobs involved with producing, pressing, packaging, shipping, and selling physical media.

And it creates jobs for maintaining, monitoring, updating, and fixing the distribution system.

Jobs that require more skill and thus have a higher barrier to entry.

Leading to a brighter more productive society by necessity. A win IMO.

 

[Engineer]

Walmart needs you. Somebody (actually, everyone at this pace) has to sell crap back and forth to each other.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

Yes I agree with you that not all innovation creates efficiencies, but we are talking about the large number of them that do.

The internet and digitial media are totally economic innovations. They reduce the need for middlemen and physical media, and increase production on large scale while reducing the need for resources and labor. They are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

The middlemen is far from being removed from the process by the internet. The most jobs that would have been lost is a few grocery boys. For every grocery boy who lost his job because of online shopping, 10 more network admins got a job. Many companies who would have never dreamed of having an IT staff now need one as in the modern market, you can't compete without some sort of web site.

As for media distribution, yeah, some jobs where lost. However, jobs gained (again) by network admins, on-site maintenance programmers, and media developers greatly outweighs the number of people that would pull a lever to stamp a CD, or watch as the machine rolls out a VHS tape. (Hey look, those are two jobs that didn't exist at all and were created by innovation without killing other jobs).

Again, what we are seeing is the death of unspecialized jobs, not the death of jobs in general. Personally, I think that is a good thing. Because of the nature of innovations, society as a whole has to either become more intelligent, or fall behind. It provides much less leeway to the lazy.

You are flat out crazy if you think that only a few grocery baggers have lost, or will lose, their jobs because of the internet. It is making entire career choices and industries (I'm looking at you cable & sat companies) obsolete. And we are smack in the middle of internet innovation. My argument is there is net loss of jobs long term, not that their isn't an increase short term during the implementation, because you're right, right now there likely is. It won't last.

All the jobs I mentioned are jobs that won't go away and that can't go away. Not "Installation time" jobs. You are flat out crazy if you think the industry will go away. Rather, it will take a new form (like it always has.) Sure, the Satellite broadcasting system may go cu-put because there is a cheaper way to do it. However, the cheaper way of the internet is just as complex as the broadcasting methods of satellites.

Cable is a great example of adaptation, the wires that once brought solely TV to the house soon will bring solely internet to a house. Transmission is transmission, it still has to happen and regardless of the form it takes, it will always take some sort of maintenance.

Look at the now dead vacuum tube industry. Yes, transistors killed off the vacuum tube. But in its death, they created Thousands upon Thousands of jobs for EE. Jobs that aren't going away any time soon. In its short lifetime, the semiconductor industry has vastly surpasses the vacuum tube industry in the number of jobs currently running.

I'm tired of arguing this. But the fact is you are looking backwards at innovation over the last century as guarantee of future prosperity. It won't be so. Jobs that "can't possibly go away" will. It's happening now. It will get worse.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Leading to a brighter more productive society by necessity. A win IMO.

No, it reduces factor mobility and excludes more people from entry. These two are antithetic to a perfect market.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

At some point, there has to come a net loss of required labor due to the increased efficiency from innovation. That's the whole point of innovation, increased productivity through increased efficiency, and thus decreased reliance on labor. How can this translate into more sustained jobs? My point is we're in a boom, have been for decades and decades, and our view is being colored by that context. Our past century or so of production/consumption and rate of innovation is not sustainable and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we are working ourselves down to fewer and fewer necessary jobs.

And here's what you're missing. Not all innovations results in production efficiency gains. In fact, very few of them do. The Ipod, the internet, digital media. All innovations that generally do not increase productivity. Yet all create their own unique brands of jobs.

To look at innovations in a pure manufacturing sense is a pretty narrow view of what innovations are or could be.

Yes I agree with you that not all innovation creates efficiencies, but we are talking about the large number of them that do.

The internet and digitial media are totally economic innovations. They reduce the need for middlemen and physical media, and increase production on large scale while reducing the need for resources and labor. They are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

The middlemen is far from being removed from the process by the internet. The most jobs that would have been lost is a few grocery boys. For every grocery boy who lost his job because of online shopping, 10 more network admins got a job. Many companies who would have never dreamed of having an IT staff now need one as in the modern market, you can't compete without some sort of web site.

As for media distribution, yeah, some jobs where lost. However, jobs gained (again) by network admins, on-site maintenance programmers, and media developers greatly outweighs the number of people that would pull a lever to stamp a CD, or watch as the machine rolls out a VHS tape. (Hey look, those are two jobs that didn't exist at all and were created by innovation without killing other jobs).

Again, what we are seeing is the death of unspecialized jobs, not the death of jobs in general. Personally, I think that is a good thing. Because of the nature of innovations, society as a whole has to either become more intelligent, or fall behind. It provides much less leeway to the lazy.

You are flat out crazy if you think that only a few grocery baggers have lost, or will lose, their jobs because of the internet. It is making entire career choices and industries (I'm looking at you cable & sat companies) obsolete. And we are smack in the middle of internet innovation. My argument is there is net loss of jobs long term, not that their isn't an increase short term during the implementation, because you're right, right now there likely is. It won't last.

All the jobs I mentioned are jobs that won't go away and that can't go away. Not "Installation time" jobs. You are flat out crazy if you think the industry will go away. Rather, it will take a new form (like it always has.) Sure, the Satellite broadcasting system may go cu-put because there is a cheaper way to do it. However, the cheaper way of the internet is just as complex as the broadcasting methods of satellites.

Cable is a great example of adaptation, the wires that once brought solely TV to the house soon will bring solely internet to a house. Transmission is transmission, it still has to happen and regardless of the form it takes, it will always take some sort of maintenance.

Look at the now dead vacuum tube industry. Yes, transistors killed off the vacuum tube. But in its death, they created Thousands upon Thousands of jobs for EE. Jobs that aren't going away any time soon. In its short lifetime, the semiconductor industry has vastly surpasses the vacuum tube industry in the number of jobs currently running.

I'm tired of arguing this. But the fact is you are looking backwards at innovation over the last century as guarantee of future prosperity. It won't be so. Jobs that "can't possibly go away" will. It's happening now. It will get worse.

To cite one specific example in Cogman's post, the semiconductor industry has experienced a net loss of jobs since 2000 (link - I chose CA because of Silicon Valley, but you can find similar data for other major metro areas known for semiconductors; the data comes from the BLS). Comparing it to vacuum tubes and saying how many new jobs it has created that "aren't going away any time soon" seems somewhat backward-looking to me. It seems the industry has been shrinking for some time now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

I'm tired of arguing this. But the fact is you are looking backwards at innovation over the last century as guarantee of future prosperity. It won't be so. Jobs that "can't possibly go away" will. It's happening now. It will get worse.

You are right jobs are disappearing and news ones appearing to take their place. Creative destruction is what it is called. Somehow the good jobs keep being destroyed, yet our standard of living continues to rise. Just like the jobs of the last century are the jobs of today, I dont expect the jobs of next century to the be the jobs of today. I do expect we will all be better off than we are today.

 

[rchiu]

The OP and the article looks at a very narrow definition of Economy, namely efficiency. Yes part of the economy is efficiency/productivity, and if you only look at that area, it will be great to always outsource job to the most efficient country or let the machine replace all the labor.

But economy also deal with price stability, employment among other things that make the society stable. If you have high unemployment due to mis-management of work force development and keeping job opportunities in the country, you will have high unemployment, and large income gap as the article described.

Capitalism driven by profit takes care of the efficiency part of the economy. It will take goverment planning with both fiscal and monetary policies to take care of the other parts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

I'm tired of arguing this. But the fact is you are looking backwards at innovation over the last century as guarantee of future prosperity. It won't be so. Jobs that "can't possibly go away" will. It's happening now. It will get worse.

You are right jobs are disappearing and news ones appearing to take their place. Creative destruction is what it is called. Somehow the good jobs keep being destroyed, yet our standard of living continues to rise. Just like the jobs of the last century are the jobs of today, I dont expect the jobs of next century to the be the jobs of today. I do expect we will all be better off than we are today.

Heh. The reason our standard of living continues to rise, as you put it, is because we keep taking on more and more debt, particularly at a governmental level.

Which is part and parcel of the supply side illusion, of the biggest transfer of wealth to the very, very top in the history of the world... The financial elite have been on a looting spree for decades, the target being middle class prosperity right here in the USA.

There's more than one way to drag the government of the people down and drown it in the bathtub, as Grover Norquist put it, and the chosen method is debt. Egalitarian democracy simply can't exist where government is owned, held hostage financially. Which is the whole point, aside from unfathomable greed...

The ultimate denouement will come as the value of the currency is eroded by constant over spending- cheap imported petroleum and cheap imported goods won't be cheap anymore, and where attempts to "stimulate the economy" via debt acquisition won't work...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

I'm tired of arguing this. But the fact is you are looking backwards at innovation over the last century as guarantee of future prosperity. It won't be so. Jobs that "can't possibly go away" will. It's happening now. It will get worse.

You are right jobs are disappearing and news ones appearing to take their place. Creative destruction is what it is called. Somehow the good jobs keep being destroyed, yet our standard of living continues to rise. Just like the jobs of the last century are the jobs of today, I dont expect the jobs of next century to the be the jobs of today. I do expect we will all be better off than we are today.

Heh. The reason our standard of living continues to rise, as you put it, is because we keep taking on more and more debt, particularly at a governmental level.

Which is part and parcel of the supply side illusion, of the biggest transfer of wealth to the very, very top in the history of the world... The financial elite have been on a looting spree for decades, the target being middle class prosperity right here in the USA.

There's more than one way to drag the government of the people down and drown it in the bathtub, as Grover Norquist put it, and the chosen method is debt. Egalitarian democracy simply can't exist where government is owned, held hostage financially. Which is the whole point, aside from unfathomable greed...

The ultimate denouement will come as the value of the currency is eroded by constant over spending- cheap imported petroleum and cheap imported goods won't be cheap anymore, and where attempts to "stimulate the economy" via debt acquisition won't work...

Good to see you back.

One correction - the added debt is actually 'particularly' at the private level.

The current situation really does beg the question, what if the rich brought about 'the biggest transfer of the wealth in the history of the world', and the media diesn't report it?

Could the people just miss it as invisible? Apparently, yes, as long as they're given someone to blame.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have thought much of this before. It seems to be doing weird things as manufacturing is smaller and smaller. I think in the future once so much is automated and roboticized and the infrastructure is so vast that a great number of people can effectively live indefinitely without work (think welfare, but a much higher quality of life), it will be ok to have huge unemployment, or pitifully low-employed people who do nothing they really need to be doing (Japan has some jobs like this). In the meantime technology is changing what people do and quickly.

Instead of having huge amounts of people unemployed, perhaps more people could be employed but work fewer hours per week, resulting in an increase in many people's standard of living.

Both a fine idea, and a long-time plank of the socialists since the 30's at least; and the root of our 40-hour work week/overtime laws.

 

[LunarRay]

The Real Problem with the Economy Is...

Our Foreign Policy agenda.
We are using every element at our disposal to effect policy around the world and every American is on the front line whether you know it or like it or not.

No one, not one single person able to think could have not understood the effect of 'One World Economy'. All nations move to the point of equilibrium. Up, Down or sideways! The US being among those with the highest standard of living had to move down. But, thought the brilliant economic adviser elite corps, we can sustain our standard by debt creation UNTIL we can utilize our competitive advantages. Right!

The dummies forgot about (I doubt it) that aspect of competitive advantage that is had by places like China, India, Mexico and the rest. IF people are involved in the process we are either going to be at a disadvantage or our labor costs to make stuff here is going to get much lower than it was. Do you think folks would work for half what they used to earn? Yes, I think so. Do you think someone had a clue what would occur to the housing market when folks couldn't pay the mortgage? I think so. Did they know folks used non consumer credit items like Equity loans and refinancing to keep the economy going? I think so. Do you think they knew exactly what was about to happen and acted like it was the fault of Mae and Mac?... I think so.

Nope, the American blue collar manufacturing worker is not needed at the moment.. They are being sustained, however, if they are, by the almighty debt.
I heard today that the economy is turning around. But it is a turnaround with out job creation... That is really interesting. I wonder how it can be? What changed? Oh.. I get it... Tell folks enough that it is all OK.. and they'll believe it and act like it is... Right!!

Just how many Americans looking to work are there? Twice the Unemployment numbers? More? Used to be in order to break even with work force entry and exit we needed to create 150,000 jobs a month. Guess all this new math has passed me by.

Edit: One advantage of getting old is I won't be around to deal with the issues down the road and I can assume that all the stuff I learned so long ago may, in fact, be so out dated that what fuels my anger gives rise to the guess that maybe it will be all ok and when the wolf huffs and puffs he'll only blow down the China owned apartment bldg that has become the American dream... or tent.

 

[Engineer]

The economy really doesn't need you anymore!

 

[Elias824]

Uh oh Guys I think steam power is going to take the jobs of man!