The Great Recession - post mortem

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

And people obviously had a much lower standard of living then, we've gotten pretty fat and happy and entitled to stuff and shiny new things.

But I think there is a looming employment crisis. As some point we'll have to get past the idea that everybody has to have a job. That doesn't mean the end of capitalism, because the smaller number of people who do work meaningful jobs could still be much better off, and then there would still be great competition for those jobs, but at some point there will have to be greater social support system for those without jobs. (that's the general direction anyway, you'd much rather be unemployed now than during the 30s.)

Yes, I definitely get the feeling there's a "shift", slowly approaching how employment is going to work here. What exactly that may be, I'm not sure, but, it seems companies are happy not hiring people and their employees don't seem to mind taking on the extra burden without the extra pay.

I just have a hard time calling what's going on right now a depression. It may be 'depressing', but, comparing to what happened in the 30s and what is happening now, they seem to be very different other than job loss and even then the amount of job loss isn't even close to what it was back then.

[JPhillips]

So much infrastructure to build/repair and negative real interest rates. Too bad nobody in power can figure out the obvious course of action.

But, on the other hand, austerity has been working wonders in Europe.

[cartman]

Usually economic depressions are defined as recessions lasting longer than 8 quarters. And recessions are usually defined as two or more quarters of negative GDP growth. Since we've had an expanding GDP, then the term depression doesn't fit in an economic sense.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by cartman

Usually economic depressions are defined as recessions lasting longer than 8 quarters. And recessions are usually defined as two or more quarters of negative GDP growth. Since we've had an expanding GDP, then the term depression doesn't fit in an economic sense.

It sure does sell newspapers/magazines and gets page views, though!

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The problem is that they don't want their customers broke - but like banks they only think in terms of themselves and their profits.

For instance why should they hire if its not going to maximise their profits, better to automate and cut their work force (check out your local Walmart/DIY store and check how many self-service tills there are today etc.).

Each decision like this maximises their profits in the short-term while subtly increasing unemployment as a by-product.

This isn't particularly 'evil' imho, its just capitalism at work - however a by-product is that going forward there will be fewer and fewer jobs each decade, at some point society will have to adapt to take this into account and (hopefully) look for an alternative to capitalism which doesn't victimise people who can't find jobs when there aren't any available.

PS - If you look into the jobs figures you'll find two things (1) private sector not hiring very quickly (partially due to the above imho), (2) the continual 'cuts' which are on-going within the government are heavily weighing on things.

I disagree to a point. The self service kiosks are great, half the time I can scan faster than the dang cashier. Plus, if I can do the same thing a cashier can, is that cashier's skills very valuable?

Hopefully, we figure out a way to push people into more productive careers and/or developing a better skill set.

Many of the jobs in the service sector will likely go away in the future because we have technology that is better suited to filling those roles.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Many of the jobs in the service sector will likely go away in the future because we have technology that is better suited to filling those roles.

To me, this is going to be part of our problem as a country. Typically, our lowest educated work in the service industry. Not knocking them, I worked in retail until I was 30, it is just the way it is. If you kill those jobs, where are those people going to go? They were probably making less than $12 an hour at their retail job, and now they are unemployed. Are they going to be able to go get an education while working part time and possibly taking care of children?

As a former Home Depot manager, I watched as we automated jobs on the front end (cashiers), inventory management, and in the cash office. We even eliminated the Human Resources manager. I am sure those moves were great for the company, but sucked for the 10,000+ employees that lost their job company-wide.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I disagree to a point. The self service kiosks are great, half the time I can scan faster than the dang cashier. Plus, if I can do the same thing a cashier can, is that cashier's skills very valuable?

The skills might not be valuable but the income is to the cashier ...

[molson]

I don't know if there's a limit to it but technology has created a lot more jobs than its killed. People started freaking out about robots taking all our jobs probably around when the industrial revolution started. And take the assembly line. It wiped out a lot of jobs but once cars became cheap and ubiquitous in American culture, it opened up brand new industries, and even brand new cities. The internet is kind of the same way. Self-check out machines - maybe not so much all by themselves. But I can't see technology as the enemy. I mean, what's the eventual end game, robots doing everything? Great, robot slaves, we'll wonder why the hell we ever wanted "jobs". And in a global economy, the jobs we want our country to have are the ones it's hardest for robots to do. Manual labor jobs leaving for another country is no big tragedy in the grand scheme of things. I'd be more concerned if we lost the finance industry, the entertainment industry, academia, IT entrepreneurs, shit we're actually good at at a global level.

[lungs]

So first manufacturing jobs went away, now service jobs are going to go away too? So what are unskilled people going to have in the future? I don't care what anybody says and this may sound harsh, but there is a certain segment of the population that won't and can't develop skills. And it's not really their fault, they just weren't endowed with those capacities.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by lungs

So first manufacturing jobs went away, now service jobs are going to go away too? So what are unskilled people going to have in the future? I don't care what anybody says and this may sound harsh, but there is a certain segment of the population that won't and can't develop skills. And it's not really their fault, they just weren't endowed with those capacities.

Soylent Green.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

So first manufacturing jobs went away, now service jobs are going to go away too? So what are unskilled people going to have in the future? I don't care what anybody says and this may sound harsh, but there is a certain segment of the population that won't and can't develop skills. And it's not really their fault, they just weren't endowed with those capacities.

I think it's going to take a long, long while before technology eliminates the service industry. But when it does, I wonder if we'd be OK with a society where the unskilled don't work anymore, but get publicly funded food, shelter, free healthcare, some kind of discretionary public income. Will the people with skills and jobs have enough beyond that to make the work worthwhile? Will there be too much resentment between the workers and the non-workers? I mean, they'd both be getting something good out of the deal, maybe we'd evolve to accept it.

[Warhammer]

I figure we'll make three great ark ships. We will call it the ark fleet. We'll send out the B ark first to colonize a new world. Since they are a bunch of useless sods, we'll have to make sure it crash lands on the planet.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I figure we'll make three great ark ships. We will call it the ark fleet. We'll send out the B ark first to colonize a new world. Since they are a bunch of useless sods, we'll have to make sure it crash lands on the planet.

Hairdressers and insurance salesman, right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The skills might not be valuable but the income is to the cashier ...

But how do you fix that? You can't cut back on technology. If we all deposit our checks through our phone, bank tellers lose their jobs. But if that's what people want, there doesn't seem to be much you can do (besides be the person who writes the software for that).

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Yep...this shit especially pisses me off



Why the hell do you HAVE to be late or in some way demonstrate you can't afford the property right now? This is fundamentally ass backwards.

I was just talking with my best friend for 20+ years, who now owns a title company. We were discussing the latest government programs out there & how f'd up they all are in terms of moral hazard.

Essentially, somebody like me...

• A guy who bought with 20% down, conventional loan, primary residence, mortgage well within my budget
• Lost his job (or more accurately, the company was about to go bankrupt so I had to find a new job)
• Got a job which required me to relocate out of state (otherwise I'm taking an easy 50% pay cut if I could even find somebody willing to hire me at 50% of what I made previously)
• Selling my house wasn't possible as my value dropped more than 50% in 2 years & I did not have the cash to unload it (and didnt want to short sale)
• So I rent my house & become a landlord for the past 3 years...all the while responsibly paying the mortgage on time despite occasional rental occupancy gaps
• Now I'm about to relocate back (same company) and resume primary residence at the house again

And I'm not eligible for a government refi- or principal reduction (government or otherwise) because

1. My loan was not FHA (which is 99% of the time a low or no downpayment loan...meaning somebody is stretching a little in the first place imho. Obviously just a generalization but my point is about responsibility & moral hazard)
2. I'm never late

Now...I don't need or want government assistance to refi- my loan when I do get back to living in my old house as I will have the cash to make up the gap (or at least I think I will). But of course...this make me the idiot, sucker, etc.



I realize its much better to have the problem of having a job and being able to pay my mortgage, despite not living in the house, versus having no job & no way to pay for it....but thats called life planning imho. I knew I could float for almost a year with my expenses (mortgage included). Had it not worked out that way, and I was not able to find a job inside of a year, then yes I'd have been SOL. Nobody likes that situation but I'm not sure why anybody would owe me a refi- or principal reduction had I found a job for 1/10th of what I made.


I've been saying it for years now...what the government has been doing is creating an atmosphere of not just moral hazard...moral anarchy imo. You cannot save everybody (I give "me" as an example there) but even worse, you do NOT want to create an atmosphere that rewards reckless behavior. And putting 3.5% (or nothing) down, spending your actual income on car payments for a BMW, big screen TVs, taking a cruise for 5 days, and then missing the mortgage payment and getting a principal reduction does not sit well with responsible people (including responsible people that truly have lost their income).


IDK...maybe I'm doing it wrong too.

I think the middle class is the sucker in these situations. The bread and circuses is for the poor to prevent them from going apeshit, meanwhile the super rich (and somewhat rich gamers) get coddled on easy street. The ones who end up paying for it all are the middle classers with higher rents (overall, if it ain't income tax its FICA, new fees, or good old inflation which hits people with low interest savings the hardest).

The middle class has just enough comfort to be kicked in the ass very hard and still have too much too lose to complain too loudly and just enough gullibility to pay into organized cr... er charities.

I personally think this program is idiotic, and the bailout was idiotic, I still stand by my original solution (which assumes the banks were not lying out their ass and the recession was truly a mortgage problem): Have the government takeover mortgages with a short term guarantee on payments, offer a government backed refinance scheme that was enforced on the banks to some degree (at 2008 rates, not today's mockery), and maintain a short window of mortgage payments so the derivatives based on them maintain some measurable value at an easily estimated fixed government cost (X% of all mortgages was still less than the bailouts being proposed and far less than the printing press the Fed opened shop with to paper over the losses which is basically legitimized fraud).


Let the healthy mortgages transition in such a program and keep chugging, finance the bad derivatives in the lowest cost form (support the underlying assets, not the multiple leveraged imaginary debts that were super toxic), and kick out the worst homeowners with the least danger to the markets.

The government could even take a cut, for instance a fee for the guarantee assessed on the homeowners who refinance, and a cut of the short sale on the house relative to the amount of support payments made by the government compared to its assessed value according to the mortgage. Maybe even a kickback on the support payments from the banks (who otherwise would be shit out of luck and having to face the margin call, that is worth a few basis points to Uncle Sam).

We all know why such a thing will never happen, the government and the banks are corrupt. So instead we get the bailouts and rebellion management techniques to tide things over until they either recover on their own (with recovery slowed down by the bailouts, I might even have enough to write a paper explaining how now) or shit completely hits the fan.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The corporations are in control; they're very happy with things at present - they're making good profits with lower costs ....

The fact that the public are hurting and unemployment is high isn't a concern t o them at all.

Governments SHOULD be investing heavily in infrastructure and helping society by creating jobs that way, but they're controlled by corporations and money men so don't want to potentially increase inflations which would devalue the profits the corporations are milking ...

Add to this the various laws/rules which are being forced through during this crisis to benefit money men and corporations and you can see why they're happy for this state of affairs to continue as long as possible.

(end cynical rant - its early morning and I haven't had my second coffee yet )

I think the boost to demand would outstrip the inflation in the short term, we're getting the inflation anyway... commodities have doubled or tripled since bottom and even with continued 'low demand' the prices are sticking. If China is willing to finance us at these rates so we can build say, Korea-Japan quality internet infrastructure, a new power grid, and upgrade the cargo rail system, I say go for it. All three of those could kick off a new round of efficiency gains that might pay for themselves, possibly even before the 10-yrs are due.

Sadly, corporations love depressed wages... high demand could lead to high profits, but it involves risk, and this group of sad shit CEOs can't manage their way out of a paper bag. They want to milk a low rage, 'high productivity' period for as much as they can, unfortunately continued depressed jobs picture just keeps a shadow over growth needed in the long run. We may have permanantly reduced demand and production capacity as a result of this vicious cycle we are in.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by cartman

Usually economic depressions are defined as recessions lasting longer than 8 quarters. And recessions are usually defined as two or more quarters of negative GDP growth. Since we've had an expanding GDP, then the term depression doesn't fit in an economic sense.

Where did that expanding GDP come from though? Take apart the numbers and apply some math and I think you see a whole bunch of minus signs and a big whopper of a positive balance. Take out financial gimics and we have been shrinking during the years of negative employment growth (reads as a slight recession and then growth after the gimics) followed by slow growth on the charts now (with a lot less financial gimics though).

If you can paper things over with a few trillion in 'liquidity' I can give you an expanding GDP for the next century as long as I can find enough suckers, immediately followed by a hyperinflation event and some form of reset. Unfortunately I think this has been the plan for about 80-90 years now....

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it's going to take a long, long while before technology eliminates the service industry. But when it does, I wonder if we'd be OK with a society where the unskilled don't work anymore, but get publicly funded food, shelter, free healthcare, some kind of discretionary public income. Will the people with skills and jobs have enough beyond that to make the work worthwhile? Will there be too much resentment between the workers and the non-workers? I mean, they'd both be getting something good out of the deal, maybe we'd evolve to accept it.

It's an interesting point. I think we'll always have some unskilled labor source. But it does feel like it's shrinking a bit.

I wonder if maybe we'll shift back toward households where only one parent works. It frees up more jobs in the market and kids have someone at home to raise them 24/7.

[SportsDino]

Workers will have to adapt, and have to a degree. However, the current environment is just depressing with no gain. Increased productivity and automation is supposed to be accompanied by higher standard of living, at least for those working. We don't have that, we have more work by less workers with more of the proceeds going to fatcat CEOs. Its depressing job creation, which is inefficient, if those resources actually were reinvested or even consumed through higher wages, you create the environment where people are interested in taking risks and coming up with ideas that create the next big business, whether it is internet, or home robot slaves, and so on.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The skills might not be valuable but the income is to the cashier ...

True - but it's so Dark Ages to purposely hold technology back for the human factor. I mean, seriously - should we go back to the ox and the plow? Really, it's the same thing. Should we hold back technology? It doesn't make sense.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it's going to take a long, long while before technology eliminates the service industry. But when it does, I wonder if we'd be OK with a society where the unskilled don't work anymore, but get publicly funded food, shelter, free healthcare, some kind of discretionary public income. Will the people with skills and jobs have enough beyond that to make the work worthwhile? Will there be too much resentment between the workers and the non-workers? I mean, they'd both be getting something good out of the deal, maybe we'd evolve to accept it.

The biggest problem I see is that one of the old sayings that "idleness breeds wickedness". People sitting around with all the time in the world will likely unleash a whole other can of worms. Even if all their needs are taken care of. I just look at myself, if I wasn't working I'd probably be getting drunk all the time causing all kinds of mischief.

Only way I could see having a whole class of society not working is to have a very heavy-handed police state that strictly regulates behavior. Wait... we already have that. They're called prisons!

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Workers will have to adapt, and have to a degree. However, the current environment is just depressing with no gain. Increased productivity and automation is supposed to be accompanied by higher standard of living, at least for those working. We don't have that, we have more work by less workers with more of the proceeds going to fatcat CEOs. Its depressing job creation, which is inefficient, if those resources actually were reinvested or even consumed through higher wages, you create the environment where people are interested in taking risks and coming up with ideas that create the next big business, whether it is internet, or home robot slaves, and so on.

But aren't we worth what value we bring to the company? By default, the "fatcat" CEOs are the figurehead of the company - and are 9 times out of ten the highest paid because they bring the most value to the company via their position. I mean - what changed (?) - if I bring X amount of dollars to a company aren't I at least worth a percentage of that? Somewhere, somehow, someone's going to see a value in that and be paid commensurate with that value. Whether it's a startup or whatever - someone is going to pay you the value you bring to a company.

Now, it there are 500 people who could do the work YOU do, then it makes sense that the value you bring to that particular job will be lessened.

I will asterisk this with - there are a ton of "the suck" CEOs out there, who get paid $$$ for little value, but let's remove that from the equation. I have no idea why that occurs, nor why it is tolerated.

Bottom line is, if you can show your employer that you bring more to the company than the next guy, it would be foolish for the company/employer not to pay you what you're worth.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if we'd be OK with a society where the unskilled don't work anymore, but get publicly funded food, shelter, free healthcare, some kind of discretionary public income.

Sounds like you just described an overpopulation problem.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

so what's the plan now? we're going to pay the 'undesirables' to gtfo while the rest of us (and by 'us' i mean scientists, engineers, delusional text sim aficionados... y'know, the pillars of society) to toil away at our crafts?

that's a smashing idea and a brilliant long term strategy.

y'know, once a week the greatest minds in greece used to meet to discuss the best way to run society. it was called 'eros' because it was seen as the ultimate expression of love. what is the best system to be the most benefit to the most people?

i wonder if paying the poor to fuck off so the people at the big boy table can get stuff done ever came up?

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

so what's the plan now? we're going to pay the 'undesirables' to gtfo while the rest of us (and by 'us' i mean scientists, engineers, delusional text sim aficionados... y'know, the pillars of society) to toil away at our crafts?

that's a smashing idea and a brilliant long term strategy.

y'know, once a week the greatest minds in greece used to meet to discuss the best way to run society. it was called 'eros' because it was seen as the ultimate expression of love. what is the best system to be the most benefit to the most people?

i wonder if paying the poor to fuck off so the people at the big boy table can get stuff done ever came up?

I didn't really think of it like that, more like everyone gets paid, everyone gets some acceptable minimum, no matter if you're poor or at the big boy table. If you're actually good enough to contribute, you'd ideally get a hell of a lot more. Just playing around with future hypotheticals, but if you had, say, 40 or 50% unemployment, what's your alternative? Pass laws to stall technology so the unskilled can feel like they're contributing too? That seems even more demeaning.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sounds like you just described an overpopulation problem.

It would seem so, but apparently people don't reproduce as much if they're in a more stable situation. At least, that's what Bill Gates says when people ask if we'll really screw up the earth for good if we wipe out diseases in developing nations and nobody dies anymore.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

and i'm a card carrying misanthropist but blaming overpopulation is the most entitled bullshit there is. being born's not like the line to space mountain. you don't have a choice. you're shat out where you're shat out under whatever circumstances.

i wonder if fish ever feel that way:

'y'know it'd be a lot easier to find food and mate if you fuckers weren't always in my way. your mothers should be ashamed, squeezin out so many eggs. i'd love nothing more than to see you all in the back of a boat. oh fuck.. is that a shark!? WE GOTTA STICK TOGETHER MAN!'

if you really want to get down to who deserves to be here and who doesn't i promise nobody on this board would make the cut.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by molson

I didn't really think of it like that, more like everyone gets paid, everyone gets some acceptable minimum, no matter if you're poor or at the big boy table. If you're actually good enough to contribute, you'd ideally get a hell of a lot more. Just playing around with future hypotheticals, but if you had, say, 40 or 50% unemployment, what's your alternative? Pass laws to stall technology so the unskilled can feel like they're contributing too? That seems even more demeaning.

Spain's been running at 25%+ for years so you have an example. I imagine a bunch of cranky slackers protesting everything (see 1% marches or France). Unless you envision some sort of Star Trek utopia.

[SteveMax58]

I've been thinking about the idea of sustained low employment (or higher unemployment if you will) a lot more lately.

Of course, the obvious culprit would be that its a factor of software being able to replace what people do for a living more & more. I sometimes think about the types of jobs that software could replace.

1. Lawyers & Judges - why does a person need to interpret the law or find ways to present legal matters when it can be automated into software? Sure, there may be needs to have "law specialists" of some sort to administer the rules around the software & systems but that isn't the same as actually reviewing the individual cases. You'd also need a certification system for "law software" which likely means some massive company creates a standard & the government adopts it. Then you no longer need to worry about expensive legal help...its all automated & available via dropdown boxes. Think its crazy? See turbo tax.

2. Realtors - who needs a person to help you find listings or walk you through? You could have an automated "MLS 2.0" that allows consumers to see, post, and schedule their own showings for various properties. Sellers could have "smart" lockboxes that have timed codes given out (i.e. you scheduled this showing at 3-3:30pm so you get a "key code" for just a short while). That covers the idea of listing & lockboxes but you'd have the ability to purchase addtl software to assist you in pricing your home, negotiating the sale, and covering the legal needs. No more 6-7% in realtor costs...now you can get it for $99.99!!

3. Communications Engineers - with cloud computing, worldwide standards, and abstraction of boundaries via the internet...why do you need to have a person design a network? Its all automated via the "global product database" which has myriads of fields which can be populated to properly inform the "engineering software" of its specifications & standards that it supports. The system then spits out what your lower wage "wiring tech" needs to add. Speaking fo which...why not just make a standard for dynamic interface speeds & the wiring techs can be replaced as well! Woot!!

4. Accountants - similar to the judges & lawyers, why does this need to be a profession? With the national laws being put into the "laws database", you do the same for everything else related to tax laws, labor laws, business laws, and the rest of the applicable law types of need so that your company's accounting can be optimized automatically.


Certainly there is already some level of these (and many other) examples in smaller subsets today being used. But I can't help but think this type of society will ultimately lead us to a system of serfs & peasants with a large scale revolution at some tipping point.

Not that we shouldn't be embracing new technologies moving forward. Quite the opposite...I think its a reason to be more vigilant in protecting the concept that we should all continue to benefit from the efficiencies that are being created. But NOT at the expense of requiring bigger companies, bigger government, and ultimately bigger concentration of wealth & power. That is to me, the scary part of technology trends that replace workers.

[Marc Vaughan]

Not that we shouldn't be embracing new technologies moving forward. Quite the opposite...I think its a reason to be more vigilant in protecting the concept that we should all continue to benefit from the efficiencies that are being created. But NOT at the expense of requiring bigger companies, bigger government, and ultimately bigger concentration of wealth & power. That is to me, the scary part of technology trends that replace workers.

Big/Strong government can be a GOOD thing imho - its the only organisation within a country which is designed to be a positive for the people living within that country, that is its intended to look out for them and trying to ensure some sort of level of happiness and prosperity amongst them. It can also work to redistribute wealth when required.

In my personal opinion the (cough) democratic governments have been corrupted by corporations who are the true key holders these days - but with reform, they can once again look after the people within them.

(yeah I'm a socialist what can I say - I don't think corporations are people thanks very much )

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Big/Strong government can be a GOOD thing imho -

See, this is where I actually think we have a chicken/egg situation. Partially could depend on one's own definition of "big government" as well.

I don't think you have such massive companies (which equates to high concentration of wealth imho) if there isn't already too much government. These mega-companies form organically over time from buyouts & mergers and the inevitable "efficiencies" that come with consolidation. This naturally reduces the number of total employees-to-revenue ratio and I think this is a highly natural evolution due to increased complexity to do business over time.

Everything from tax laws, to labor rules, to wall street investor relations, to offshore accounting, to you name it...all of these are highly complex subjects to manage competently due to a government that must pass more laws & more regulations & more requirements onto business. The only natural evolution in such a complex world is for those with the deepest pockets to purchase the competition (or bankrupt the competition if they won't sell) and this leads to further consolidation of companies...which further consolidates job functions...which further creates more "unneeded labor".

Despite all of the innovation thats possible in this day & age of the internet...larger government is still preventing the concept of being a small company startup in too many fields. And by contrast...the internet is viable for new entrants (e.g. the websites, not access providers) because of the lack of too much government.

You certainly want some level of oversight of the meats we consume...you certainly want to know your power company is following safe guidelines...but at the end of the day, there are essentially too many industries that enable further entrenchment every year due to the idea that simply running a business in their respective fields is far more complex than it was 30+ years ago. It simply takes FAR too much capital just to put a sign out front to compete (optimally).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But how do you fix that? You can't cut back on technology. If we all deposit our checks through our phone, bank tellers lose their jobs. But if that's what people want, there doesn't seem to be much you can do (besides be the person who writes the software for that).

I'm not saying we should HOWEVER as a society we have to stop victimizing people for being unemployed at some stage if society is going to continue to function in 20, 30 years time when the vast amount of service jobs will have been automated (that means either moving onto something other than capitalism OR actually forcing the corporations to pay taxes and having proper provision and training for people who aren't fortunate enough to have jobs).

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'm not saying we should HOWEVER as a society we have to stop victimizing people for being unemployed at some stage if society is going to continue to function in 20, 30 years time when the vast amount of service jobs will have been automated (that means either moving onto something other than capitalism OR actually forcing the corporations to pay taxes and having proper provision and training for people who aren't fortunate enough to have jobs).

This to me is what's strange. In so many ways, we've made our society so efficient that we don't need people for some things anymore. This trend will surely continue. So the question is, what to do with these people. Do we come up with a job rotation system where people rotate in and out of jobs every other week so everybody's at least making some? Do we purposely do away with things so as to get people their jobs back? Do we put people to work on infrastructure projects so that we're seeing something for our money for welfare, etc.? So many people in these positions are capable of working so we need to start thinking about what types of projects we want to accomplish overall. The money's being spent anyway so we might as well find a way to get production from it.

[Fidatelo]

I don't get it, how can we not have jobs for people to the point they are just paid to sit at home all day? Look around your city and tell me you couldn't find a bunch of stuff for people to do to make it better. No one is inventing enough shit in the next 30 years to create some utopian society where everything is pristine and clean and, well, perfect. And until life is 100% perfect I'm not letting my tax dollars go towards people just sitting around playing Angry Birds all day.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

(i don't know why i'm such a glib cunt when i come here. sorry about that. i should stay out of political threads)

waiting to die syndrome is pretty prevalent where i live. people have just... given up i guess? it's depressing.

there's plenty of work to be done in this country. i'd argue there's more work than people. we're just so screwed up politically and philosophically. how/who's gonna pay for this shouldn't be the argument.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I don't get it, how can we not have jobs for people to the point they are just paid to sit at home all day? Look around your city and tell me you couldn't find a bunch of stuff for people to do to make it better. No one is inventing enough shit in the next 30 years to create some utopian society where everything is pristine and clean and, well, perfect. And until life is 100% perfect I'm not letting my tax dollars go towards people just sitting around playing Angry Birds all day.

I agree with the sentiment that "something" will always need to be done by people. And that it is silly to pay people to sit at home when you could have them doing something...anything...that is even remotely helpful. Hell...having people in large office buildings who simply hang out & point visitors to where they need to go is better than nothing.

My only thinking is that less & less "skilled" work needs to be done. And the more work that is unskilled & low wage...the further we'll continue to see wage disparity occur, which continues the cycle of concentrating the power & decision making to less & less people.

Thats why I'm not just in favor of "raise taxes and put people to work". I'd rather see us streamline tax code to make more transparency, remove levels of liability & laws which create the need to consolidate "too much" (I know, a highly relative term) so that you don't reward those with the best job-elimination plans with an impossible to enter marketplace (i.e. defacto monopoly...even if its just in their industry, region, etc.).

[SportsDino]

I think it is a bit early to say that overpopulation has hit and efficiencies in the workplace have made the majority of the populace unnecessary.

A lot of the employment situation right now is currency obsession and the zero-sum philosophy taken to the utmost extremes. You have a wealth class that spends more and more of its energy on creating sucker bets that drain massive amounts of capital from productivity and puts it into finance.

Eliminate 'who is going to pay for it' for a second. If we are truly going to enter a age with super high productivity per worker then we should see: higher salaries, reduced workweek durations, no supply shortages, and less waste. All of which we are not seeing with people currently overstressed, underpaid, news articles of supply disruptions slowing entire industries, and massive resource burn and pollution from industry chasing a flimsy dollar.

I think if we were to truly take a technology and efficiency approach we'd have a much better standard of living and employment for quite some time, and then followed by a period where we truly have exhausted the amount of work needed in this country (and others) compared to the amount of people we have to do it.

If we decide to measure our economy by how many cheap plastic toys we can produce, then yes the market has been saturated. If we go with a whole economic picture of standard of living, I think there is a lot of room for growth. Ultimately, I think technology could take us to the point where there truly is not enough work, but its far from that point still. Maybe tech has just pushed past the economics of yesterday where cheap plastic toy production was everything.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I don't get it, how can we not have jobs for people to the point they are just paid to sit at home all day? Look around your city and tell me you couldn't find a bunch of stuff for people to do to make it better. No one is inventing enough shit in the next 30 years to create some utopian society where everything is pristine and clean and, well, perfect. And until life is 100% perfect I'm not letting my tax dollars go towards people just sitting around playing Angry Birds all day.

That's the real problem - right supply of skills for the demand. There's massive shortages in certain areas due to lack of skilled labor. For example, I think the unemployment rate of java programmers in San Francisco is probably <1%. I'd imagine jobs that have been automated or that are less specialized have demand that is substantially lower.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I don't get it, how can we not have jobs for people to the point they are just paid to sit at home all day? Look around your city and tell me you couldn't find a bunch of stuff for people to do to make it better. No one is inventing enough shit in the next 30 years to create some utopian society where everything is pristine and clean and, well, perfect. And until life is 100% perfect I'm not letting my tax dollars go towards people just sitting around playing Angry Birds all day.

Initially (for the next 20-30 years) yes we can make up for some job losses through things like this IF corporations pay their taxes then governments will be able to afford to undertake infrastructure work etc. which will cause a lot of employment (a lot of the unemployment in recent years has actually been governments laying off workers so the exact opposite has been happening).

However long term these very tasks will also be automated and at some stage we have to accept and start planning how society will handle this happening, whether its credits/work being given for community involvement, learning or whatever I don't know ... but eventually most things will be automated.

[RainMaker]

You've mentioned the corporation thing a couple times. Our rate is 35%. One of the highest in the world. How much more do you think they can raise them? Most of these companies have shifted their money overseas to avoid it. Wouldn't raising it more just do the same?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You've mentioned the corporation thing a couple times. Our rate is 35%. One of the highest in the world. How much more do you think they can raise them? Most of these companies have shifted their money overseas to avoid it. Wouldn't raising it more just do the same?

Its not the 'base rate' of taxation which is important its the loop holes which allow them to shift their money to pretend that they don't need to pay.

You doubt this - look at Apple, their largest market is in America, yet they pay next to nothing in corporation tax ...

Last year they paid 9.8% taxation* - or under 1/3rd of what they should realistically have paid. They registered a profit of $13bn so that means they avoided paying approximately $3bn in taxes which they arguably should have ....

This situation isn't any different in other countries and similar things can be seen throughout the western world where clever accounting shifts profits artificially to low tax countries at huge detrimental cost to the actual countries where the corporations do business.

All governments need to do is close the loop holes which allow these artificial accounting manouvers .... its not like Apple is suddenly going to stop selling to their largest market because they are actually having to pay tax (nor can they threaten to move their production abroad like most politicians claim companies will do - after all 99% of them already have done so ).

*Apple, Google, Amazon Pay Corporate Income Tax Well Below Official Rate

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

if you really want to get down to who deserves to be here and who doesn't i promise nobody on this board would make the cut.

Hmm ... I'd say that depends on who determines the cut line.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

having proper provision and training for people who aren't fortunate enough to have jobs).

That word "proper" is quite the sticking point.

[RainMaker]

Greenlining doesn't know how corporate taxes work.

Apple's 9.8% Tax Rate: Entirely Mind Gargling Nonsense - Forbes

And Apple's own 10-K says it was close to 25% which is right around the rate of most of Europe.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...193/filing.pdf

Now there aren't loopholes. If a company chooses to earn profits or put it's income in another country, you can't tax it. That's not a loophole, just how taxes work. These are global companies and they can put their money where they want to on the planet.

So what is the goal? 50%? You'd just see them push more into countries like Ireland that tax very little. You're not going to bring in more profits. And even if they did stay in the country, they'd just tack it on as a cost to the consumer.

Lowering corporate tax rates is smarter because it'll keep more money in the country. Better off getting 20% of $100 billion instead of 35% of $20 billion. If you want to raise taxes on something, do it on capital gains. You can't get out of that without renouncing citizenship (yes I know the Facebook guy did it but that isn't going to happen often). It's a global economy and these are multinational companies. There is competition for their business just like there is within states here.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Initially (for the next 20-30 years) yes we can make up for some job losses through things like this IF corporations pay their taxes then governments will be able to afford to undertake infrastructure work etc. which will cause a lot of employment (a lot of the unemployment in recent years has actually been governments laying off workers so the exact opposite has been happening).

However long term these very tasks will also be automated and at some stage we have to accept and start planning how society will handle this happening, whether its credits/work being given for community involvement, learning or whatever I don't know ... but eventually most things will be automated.

I think you have a more optimistic view of technological gains than I do. You really think we're going to have robots flying around cleaning ditches, trimming trees, etc within 30 years? Even if we have invented robots that can do all that stuff by then, there is no way cities will have built enough of them.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think you have a more optimistic view of technological gains than I do. You really think we're going to have robots flying around cleaning ditches, trimming trees, etc within 30 years? Even if we have invented robots that can do all that stuff by then, there is no way cities will have built enough of them.

Well think back to 1980 and consider how far things have come since then ..

In 1980 (something) I owned my first computer which had 16kb of RAM and couldn't do a heck of a lot (I wrote a fair few Fighting Fantasy style games on it and played various other peoples games), my mobile phone was a landline which resided in my house, our high streets (in the UK) had a huge diversity of local shops and most people worked 'locally' to where they lived.

Today computers are hugely more powerful, my mobile phone is 1,000,000 more powerful than that first computer I owned and many people telecommute using technology to allow them to work from many miles away from where their office is located (4,000 in my case), the diversity of shops is decreasing as economies of scales increase etc.

Think about all the jobs which have been largely replaced by technology since then, then consider those which will disappear when retail is fully automated.

In 30 years time I expect cars to drive themselves (its beginning now with cars 'auto parking) - that takes out all taxi drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers, I expect nearly all retail positions to be replaced (inc. restocking, cooking and suchlike), in Florida a lot of people are employed cutting grass and suchlike - I actually have considered purchasing an 'automated mower' recently which would just go and cut the grass by itself ..... finally I'd be amazed if many current 'profesional' positions aren't at least partially replaced - for instance an intelligent agent diagnosing illness and then only being followed up with by a human doctor as required etc. and already within software engineering a lot of the more technical skills (ie. assembly language, intimate understanding of processors etc.) are only required by a small subset of programmers .... effectively simplifying what was originally a complex task, meaning more can be done by fewer people (same process as has happened in other areas, things will continually improve in this way until very few jobs exist imho).

PS - Theres 'no way cities will have built enough of them' ? - like theres no way that they could have built more mobile phones then there are people on the planet in the last 30 years?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So what is the goal? 50%? You'd just see them push more into countries like Ireland that tax very little. You're not going to bring in more profits. And even if they did stay in the country, they'd just tack it on as a cost to the consumer.

Lowering corporate tax rates is smarter because it'll keep more money in the country. ....

That in the essence is the greed and conflict that the corporations are preying upon, rather than countries decide amongst themselves a minimum tax rate for corporations to ensure that everyone can have a decent standard of living they compete for the attention of corporations and the crumbs left by them ... until this situation changes in some regard corporations will remain the true owners of governments and in control of society as a whole.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Well think back to 1980 and consider how far things have come since then ..

In 1980 (something) I owned my first computer which had 16kb of RAM and couldn't do a heck of a lot (I wrote a fair few Fighting Fantasy style games on it and played various other peoples games), my mobile phone was a landline which resided in my house, our high streets (in the UK) had a huge diversity of local shops and most people worked 'locally' to where they lived.

Today computers are hugely more powerful, my mobile phone is 1,000,000 more powerful than that first computer I owned and many people telecommute using technology to allow them to work from many miles away from where their office is located (4,000 in my case), the diversity of shops is decreasing as economies of scales increase etc.

Think about all the jobs which have been largely replaced by technology since then, then consider those which will disappear when retail is fully automated.

In 30 years time I expect cars to drive themselves (its beginning now with cars 'auto parking) - that takes out all taxi drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers, I expect nearly all retail positions to be replaced (inc. restocking, cooking and suchlike), in Florida a lot of people are employed cutting grass and suchlike - I actually have considered purchasing an 'automated mower' recently which would just go and cut the grass by itself ..... finally I'd be amazed if many current 'profesional' positions aren't at least partially replaced - for instance an intelligent agent diagnosing illness and then only being followed up with by a human doctor as required etc. and already within software engineering a lot of the more technical skills (ie. assembly language, intimate understanding of processors etc.) are only required by a small subset of programmers .... effectively simplifying what was originally a complex task, meaning more can be done by fewer people (same process as has happened in other areas, things will continually improve in this way until very few jobs exist imho).

PS - Theres 'no way cities will have built enough of them' ? - like theres no way that they could have built more mobile phones then there are people on the planet in the last 30 years?

A mobile phone is a lot different than a machine that can perform manual labor. I agree about retail positions, but I'm not convinced that self-driving cars are that close. There is a big difference between parallel parking a car vs actually navigating roads with other moving vehicles, pedestrians, etc.

I can't imagine that spending money on any kind of automated lawn mower would be a good idea right now. I have a roomba that sits unused because it can't handle a few obstacles and is a pain to clean. It's easier to just vacuum myself. I can't see how current technology would do a very good job with any yard that isn't a totally flat rectangle.

I don't know, it just seems to me that there is a massive leap from passive technologies like bar code scanners to things that need to operate and navigate within the actual environment we live in.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Well think back to 1980 and consider how far things have come since then ..

In 1980 (something) I owned my first computer which had 16kb of RAM and couldn't do a heck of a lot (I wrote a fair few Fighting Fantasy style games on it and played various other peoples games), my mobile phone was a landline which resided in my house, our high streets (in the UK) had a huge diversity of local shops and most people worked 'locally' to where they lived.

Today computers are hugely more powerful, my mobile phone is 1,000,000 more powerful than that first computer I owned and many people telecommute using technology to allow them to work from many miles away from where their office is located (4,000 in my case), the diversity of shops is decreasing as economies of scales increase etc.

Think about all the jobs which have been largely replaced by technology since then, then consider those which will disappear when retail is fully automated.

In 30 years time I expect cars to drive themselves (its beginning now with cars 'auto parking) - that takes out all taxi drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers, I expect nearly all retail positions to be replaced (inc. restocking, cooking and suchlike), in Florida a lot of people are employed cutting grass and suchlike - I actually have considered purchasing an 'automated mower' recently which would just go and cut the grass by itself ..... finally I'd be amazed if many current 'profesional' positions aren't at least partially replaced - for instance an intelligent agent diagnosing illness and then only being followed up with by a human doctor as required etc. and already within software engineering a lot of the more technical skills (ie. assembly language, intimate understanding of processors etc.) are only required by a small subset of programmers .... effectively simplifying what was originally a complex task, meaning more can be done by fewer people (same process as has happened in other areas, things will continually improve in this way until very few jobs exist imho).

PS - Theres 'no way cities will have built enough of them' ? - like theres no way that they could have built more mobile phones then there are people on the planet in the last 30 years?

Are you saying we should try to slow down technology so unskilled people have something to do? I didn't think that's what you're saying, but you're starting to sound a little like the unabomber.

It's interesting because in another post you talk about a "decent standard of living", which of course, is relative to modern technology. We would be disgusted by a "decent standard of living" circa 1920. Technology, and yes, corporations, are what push that technology along and that standard of living forward, right? Those who can't keep up have always fallen behind, whether it be the typewriter repair guy or the horse carriage driver. That computer wiped out a ton of jobs put created a ton, possibly even more than it killed. Attack technology, capitalism, corporations, consumerism, don't you attack our very standard of living?. (And I'm not saying attacks like, "tax them a little more", which there's plenty of room for reasonable debate on, I'm talking bigger, decades in the future, hypothetical kinds of changes.)

Edit: People talk a lot about "Clinton era tax cuts" and taxing corporations more and while those things may benefit the country and some of the people in it, they're not really huge fundamental changes. They don't really impact how in our country, a smaller amount of people are still competitive in the global economy. Shifting tax burdens doesn't change income disparity, it doesn't create a ton of meaningful long-term work for the unskilled, it doesn't end corporate greed, etc. It always seems to be that the solutions people offer are like a ill-fitting bandaid on what they see as the "problem", but it's like they're afraid to say what they REALLY think should happen. The solutions they pitch wouldn't solve the things they complain about.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you saying we should try to slow down technology so unskilled people have something to do? I didn't think that's what you're saying, but you're starting to sound a little like the unabomber.

LOL - no I'm saying that at some point society needs to adapt to realize that its not vital everyone is employed in a profit making endeavor to have value to society.

The easiest way to do this is for corporations to be taxed more heavily and that money rerouted into things which benefits individuals within society - initially I'd suggest teaching and training, then once people are more skilled and educated art, architecture etc.

I'm actually pro-technology and change*, however I think its important for society to adapt to those changes otherwise the advantages they can bring about are only felt by a small minority of people (through the profits they gain).

It's interesting because in another post you talk about a "decent standard of living", which of course, is relative to modern technology

Oh I agree totally - things have improved a lot since the turn of the century ... however I think its important to keep pushing things forward and continuing to improve things and ensuring a brighter future not just the status quo or worse ...

*Not that surprising as part of my job is anticipating the changes in technology so our games can stay with the 'curve' as things alter ....