Where is Trump's Balanced Budget?

[Conservative]

no it doesn;t force me to spend more. Why do you keep arguing this?

You are just making up nonsense now. Who the heck has argued that more "take home pay" forces you to spend more?

Yeah.. now you are spouting a bunch of gobbldey gook.

Okay.. but you explain to me.. why you as a businessman.. give employees a raise.. simply because of a tax cut? regardless of the supply and demand for workers? Why would you simply increase the 401k contributions.. when there is no market forces that drive that decision?

Please explain? Do you believe that corporations should all be non profits?

Nope.. it often increases.. but what the data shows.. is that the increase in demand does not make up for the loss in revenue that the tax cut creates.

In other words. it does not pay for itself. You lose more revenue than you gained.. you would be better not lowering taxes.

The true nonsense is giving the federal bureaucrats more of your tax money and taking that money out of the state and local government's hands expecting the bureaucrats to use that money to lower the deficit by reducing spending. That has yet to happen so until it does no higher taxes to the bureaucrats. Further when more money goes to the bureaucrats it affects other tax revenue stream which you want to ignore.

I know the bureaucrats appreciate having people like you supporting higher taxes and a bigger nanny state. Your lean is liberal with that kind of ideology. How do you know that the demand doesn't increase with tax cuts? what has increased the GDP growth in fiscal year 2018? Ever looked at the other line items in the budget? I doubt you have ever looked at the budget and revenue stream.

Tax cuts don't have to be paid for, spending does so unless you can tie consumer spending to govt. spending more you have no argument. Why does the govt. have to increase spending when people are keeping more of what they earn?

 

[Conservative]

Actually if you send more money to the IRS than owed.. they send it right back.

Not if you designate it for deficit reduction

 

[jaeger19]

The true nonsense is giving the federal bureaucrats more of your tax money and taking that money out of the state and local government's hands expecting the bureaucrats to use that money to lower the deficit by reducing spending. ?

And yet.. you want to do that by eliminating the deduction for state income taxes. You realize that you make real conservatives like me look so bad don't you? You flip flop all over the place and have no coherent answer to anything about the economy.

I know the bureaucrats appreciate having people like you supporting higher taxes and a bigger nanny state

Actually higher taxes reduce a nanny state.... when you have to actually PAY for government spending with taxes.. well then.. spending doesn't seem so awesome.

but instead.. you want to continue spending.. and decrease taxes.. furthering the nanny state.. in fact.. you want to see more money go to the federal government from states that already send more money in to the feds than they get back.. so that red states.. that get more from the feds than they put in.. can continue to be bigger welfare states.

How do you know that the demand doesn't increase with tax cuts

It does.. just not as much as the decrease in revenue that's caused by the tax cut.

what has increased the GDP growth in fiscal year 2018

A recovering economy from a deep recession. Which is what caused the economy to grow before 2018.

Tax cuts don't have to be paid for,

They do if you believe in fiscal conservancy. If you are a right wing liberal.. like yourself.. no then you don't care what the tax cuts do the deficit.

spending does

Which is paid for by revenue.. which you cut revenue generation by your tax cuts. Its that simple. Heck.. I showed you how it happens. Heck.. we have produced tons of economic research that shows its true... you just are too partisan and honestly.. just not capable of understanding even simple economic concepts or statistics.

 

[jaeger19]

Not if you designate it for deficit reduction

Nope.. you cannot send it the IRS regardless of what you earmark if for.

 

[Conservative]

And yet.. you want to do that by eliminating the deduction for state income taxes. You realize that you make real conservatives like me look so bad don't you? You flip flop all over the place and have no coherent answer to anything about the economy.



Actually higher taxes reduce a nanny state.... when you have to actually PAY for government spending with taxes.. well then.. spending doesn't seem so awesome.

but instead.. you want to continue spending.. and decrease taxes.. furthering the nanny state.. in fact.. you want to see more money go to the federal government from states that already send more money in to the feds than they get back.. so that red states.. that get more from the feds than they put in.. can continue to be bigger welfare states.

It does.. just not as much as the decrease in revenue that's caused by the tax cut.

A recovering economy from a deep recession. Which is what caused the economy to grow before 2018.

They do if you believe in fiscal conservancy. If you are a right wing liberal.. like yourself.. no then you don't care what the tax cuts do the deficit.

Which is paid for by revenue.. which you cut revenue generation by your tax cuts. Its that simple. Heck.. I showed you how it happens. Heck.. we have produced tons of economic research that shows its true... you just are too partisan and honestly.. just not capable of understanding even simple economic concepts or statistics.

Yep, and you want the federal taxpayers to subsidize your state expenses, we are done with this subject, not worth the effort. Pay your obligation and quit asking for those evil rich people to subsidize you by paying more

 

[Conservative]

Nope.. you cannot send it the IRS regardless of what you earmark if for.

Then those Obama/Clinton lemonade stand money didn't get where it was promised to go

 

[Vadinho]

Actually no.. they did not.. "demand even more workers"... why the heck would we go toward a technology that was LESS efficient? We didn;t... what happened is that those technologies.. then opened up OTHER industries and growth .. that then added more workers.



Yep.. take a look at the advent of computers and chips and satellites etc.. and then.. take a look at unemployment. Its not like computer technology has not made us more efficient.. and yet unemployment is low.

I don't think you are thinking about this fully. What drives the technology to be more efficient? Demand right? the need to produce more products etc.. with fewer people? Well what fuels that demand... those very people buying stuff and services. Now.. if the technology ends up replacing thousands of workers.. without any alternative jobs? Well then who is going to produce that demand?

the real issue again.. is not AI.. its whether the US will be in position to take advantage and adapt to the changes that AI creates in a global economy.

You are not seeing what is really going on so I will try a different approach. Today there is an industry worldwide that makes the boxes and software that lets us use the internet. It is made up of unique devices, single purpose devices that are dissimilar and proprietary in nature. In the path from me to you are literally thousands of these devices running from the edge of your house to my house. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed right now making those devices, supporting them, updating them, installing them, etc. This costs money, lots of money. The largest Telcos in the world got fed up with this scheme a few years ago and put out a white paper telling the industry what they wanted. This was a reversal of our industry, networking vendors used to tell their customers what to do and buy, now the tables are turned. So they set up a forum to explore how to change the very nature of networking equipment and design. It met for a couple years and came up with a simple yet deadly new architecture. Basically, they are forcing everyone to separate the software from the hardware and use generic hardware with servers on them in as many places as possible. These generic boxes are called white boxes. They have ethernet ports and an Intel server on them with processors. They are generic, made in factories by machines and can be used for any thing that gets loaded on them. So the ciscos, Nokias, cienas, Fujitsus, Junipers and so on of this world are threatened big time. They are separating their products into downloadable software that can be run on white boxes. Where they once charged 100k for a box, now that same box can be bought on Amazon for 5k or less. Then, the customer downloads the software from cisco or Juniper or Nokia on that generic box. No, they cannot charge the delta, customers refuse to pay the same total price for software defined networking. Bam, there goes most of all the hardware design teams, gone are the support teams for that hardware. Like your phone, a generic box can be anything at all now. This move is called OpenCord, Central Office redesigned as a data center. In other words, what was once a central office with tons of gear is now just a server farm.

This has already taken the depth out of the networking industry. It will destroy any company that cannot keep up or does not have the chops to compete. In addition, the employees at your local ISP will be let go too, you don't need them anymore, everything is done remotely. This will not create replacement jobs, no way.

 

[jaeger19]

Yep, and you want the federal taxpayers to subsidize your state expenses, we are done with this subject, not worth the effort. Pay your obligation and quit asking for those evil rich people to subsidize you by paying more

Actually by incentivizing states taking care of their own.. by giving them a tax deduction for state expenses.. it would decrease the federal government subsidizing states. You sir.. want welfare states.. where fiscally responsible states.. send more money to the federal government so that it can be doled out to welfare states..

Pay your obligation and quit asking for those evil rich people to subsidize you by paying more

You have seriously problems with reading comprehension.. I am a rich person.. and I already pay my obligation.. certainly more than you.. since I am subsidizing your social security and healthcare.

 

[jaeger19]

Then those Obama/Clinton lemonade stand money didn't get where it was promised to go

WTF? are you talking about.

 

[jaeger19]

You are not seeing what is really going on so I will try a different approach. Today there is an industry worldwide that makes the boxes and software that lets us use the internet. It is made up of unique devices, single purpose devices that are dissimilar and proprietary in nature. In the path from me to you are literally thousands of these devices running from the edge of your house to my house. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed right now making those devices, supporting them, updating them, installing them, etc. This costs money, lots of money. The largest Telcos in the world got fed up with this scheme a few years ago and put out a white paper telling the industry what they wanted. This was a reversal of our industry, networking vendors used to tell their customers what to do and buy, now the tables are turned. So they set up a forum to explore how to change the very nature of networking equipment and design. It met for a couple years and came up with a simple yet deadly new architecture. Basically, they are forcing everyone to separate the software from the hardware and use generic hardware with servers on them in as many places as possible. These generic boxes are called white boxes. They have ethernet ports and an Intel server on them with processors. They are generic, made in factories by machines and can be used for any thing that gets loaded on them. So the ciscos, Nokias, cienas, Fujitsus, Junipers and so on of this world are threatened big time. They are separating their products into downloadable software that can be run on white boxes. Where they once charged 100k for a box, now that same box can be bought on Amazon for 5k or less. Then, the customer downloads the software from cisco or Juniper or Nokia on that generic box. No, they cannot charge the delta, customers refuse to pay the same total price for software defined networking. Bam, there goes most of all the hardware design teams, gone are the support teams for that hardware. Like your phone, a generic box can be anything at all now. This move is called OpenCord, Central Office redesigned as a data center. In other words, what was once a central office with tons of gear is now just a server farm.

This has already taken the depth out of the networking industry. It will destroy any company that cannot keep up or does not have the chops to compete. In addition, the employees at your local ISP will be let go too, you don't need them anymore, everything is done remotely. This will not create replacement jobs, no way.

Of course it will. Look... lets say that the technology will not create replacement jobs.. that it won't create markets for other products and services that now can take advantage of the expanded use of the internet.. without proprietary "boxes and software".. which is frankly hard to believe. those customers for those boxes had a need that was filled... this now allows them.. to then produce other products and services.. because they are not held to a proprietary unique device.

Just like at one time.. a computer took up rooms and rooms. and tons of techs to take care off and run... and now that same process can be done on someones phone.

but lets say.. that you are right.. that no other markets for products or services will be created or allowed by this technology. And millions of people are going to lose their jobs..and there will be no replacement. well then.. it will be self limiting. Becuaes who is going to produce something that no one has the money to buy?

 

[Conservative]

Actually by incentivizing states taking care of their own.. by giving them a tax deduction for state expenses.. it would decrease the federal government subsidizing states. You sir.. want welfare states.. where fiscally responsible states.. send more money to the federal government so that it can be doled out to welfare states..

You have seriously problems with reading comprehension.. I am a rich person.. and I already pay my obligation.. certainly more than you.. since I am subsidizing your social security and healthcare.

Look, you keep arguing that your state taxes should reduce your federal obligation while calling on higher taxes, pay your fair share and you wouldn't have to do that. Don't give a **** how rich you are, that doesn't assure being smart

 

[Vadinho]

Of course it will. Look... lets say that the technology will not create replacement jobs.. that it won't create markets for other products and services that now can take advantage of the expanded use of the internet.. without proprietary "boxes and software".. which is frankly hard to believe. those customers for those boxes had a need that was filled... this now allows them.. to then produce other products and services.. because they are not held to a proprietary unique device.

Just like at one time.. a computer took up rooms and rooms. and tons of techs to take care off and run... and now that same process can be done on someones phone.

but lets say.. that you are right.. that no other markets for products or services will be created or allowed by this technology. And millions of people are going to lose their jobs..and there will be no replacement. well then.. it will be self limiting. Becuaes who is going to produce something that no one has the money to buy?

Here is the key, its the same argument Ross Perot made in 92 and we let politicians wave it away with nonsense like retraining or service sector jobs. For the highly educated with skills and the ability to move or work from home, they will find another place to work even if it is in a different industry. But what about the people who do not have those skills and the job they have today is the best job they ever had and they cannot do anything else? I see it in rural America every day I am on the road. Machines replaced farm workers. Walmart replaced Main Street. Amazon replaced all kinds of retail outlets and mom and pops. Costco took down your local grocer. Someone here, it may be you, mentioned that while we are at full employment we are very under employed in terms of wages. Well if the only jobs left are ones only humans can do you are left with very menial tasks or ones that require face to face interactions. I understand your argument that industrialization has gone through similar upheavals but this is a completely new paradigm. We are talking about software. Software does not need anyone to manufacture. I can order a license from cisco online for 100k and bingo, some server delivers a copy to me on the spot.

I heard a TED talk about this subject a while ago. He told the story of Henry Ford. When Ford made the first assembly plant it took something like a year to build. It employed people all across the region, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, machinists, etc. Once the plant was ready, it was filled with people. When it was all done, Ford was worth say one billion dollars on the market. Mark Zuckerberg writes a program with his buddies in a dorm room and copies it across servers and is worth hundred billion.

That story is going on right now in almost every sector. Every sales pitch I hear or tell is about saving OPEX.

 

[JasperL]

Of course it will. Look... lets say that the technology will not create replacement jobs.. that it won't create markets for other products and services that now can take advantage of the expanded use of the internet.. without proprietary "boxes and software".. which is frankly hard to believe. those customers for those boxes had a need that was filled... this now allows them.. to then produce other products and services.. because they are not held to a proprietary unique device.

Just like at one time.. a computer took up rooms and rooms. and tons of techs to take care off and run... and now that same process can be done on someones phone.

but lets say.. that you are right.. that no other markets for products or services will be created or allowed by this technology. And millions of people are going to lose their jobs..and there will be no replacement. well then.. it will be self limiting. Becuaes who is going to produce something that no one has the money to buy?

The discussions I've seen by people who have thought about the issue far more than I and who are far smarter is really about the kind of jobs in this new world. What's changed is the ability to invent something - and 3D printing is one example - and distribute it effectively costlessly across the globe with a click of a mouse or mobile phone, then send it to a printer somewhere, at a local business, and have it made to order, and humans are barely needed at any of those steps. There are a few highly skilled people who are in demand, but when by definition half the population is of below average intelligence, what will be the value they add in this process that's NOT a low skill job with low pay.

We're seeing a lot of it now. The transition to 'services' from goods has kind of decimated the blue collar workforce, and yes millions of jobs have emerged to replace production jobs, but they're OFTEN low skill, low value added, and low pay for the most part. My mother in law is 88 and she employs a kind of mini army of people - nurses, nurses aids, a physical therapist/trainer, people who do her laundry, yard, and clean her room, do her sheets etc. but all those except the skilled healthcare jobs are relatively low skill and low pay. We'll see MORE of that, and the question is how to justify good wages for that army?

And it's spreading to the 'skilled' positions as well. Heck, she's in assisted living and her meds are put in little baggies, 4 of them a day, by some automated system that produces similar daily packets for people all over the area, thousands of them, and they've cut out several layers of people in the average pharmacy, including dozens (?) of pharmacists, manually taking orders and putting pills in bottles, etc. Legal and accounting are getting AI'd right out of business at a rapid clip, and that trend is accelerating not slowing. We'll need accountants and lawyers at the top, but lots of good, white/pink collar jobs have just been poofed, gone. What's their role in this new AI dominated economy?

 

[jaeger19]

Here is the key, its the same argument Ross Perot made in 92 and we let politicians wave it away with nonsense like retraining or service sector jobs. For the highly educated with skills and the ability to move or work from home, they will find another place to work even if it is in a different industry. But what about the people who do not have those skills and the job they have today is the best job they ever had and they cannot do anything else? I see it in rural America every day I am on the road. Machines replaced farm workers. Walmart replaced Main Street. Amazon replaced all kinds of retail outlets and mom and pops. Costco took down your local grocer. Someone here, it may be you, mentioned that while we are at full employment we are very under employed in terms of wages. Well if the only jobs left are ones only humans can do you are left with very menial tasks or ones that require face to face interactions. I understand your argument that industrialization has gone through similar upheavals but this is a completely new paradigm. We are talking about software. Software does not need anyone to manufacture. I can order a license from cisco online for 100k and bingo, some server delivers a copy to me on the spot.

I heard a TED talk about this subject a while ago. He told the story of Henry Ford. When Ford made the first assembly plant it took something like a year to build. It employed people all across the region, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, machinists, etc. Once the plant was ready, it was filled with people. When it was all done, Ford was worth say one billion dollars on the market. Mark Zuckerberg writes a program with his buddies in a dorm room and copies it across servers and is worth hundred billion.

That story is going on right now in almost every sector. Every sales pitch I hear or tell is about saving OPEX.

Yawn....

Machines replaced farm workers.

Except we need migrant workers to work the fields... so they weren;t replaced.

Walmart replaced Main Street

Yet at full employment

Amazon replaced all kinds of retail outlets and mom and pops.

But the internet also created all sorts of other jobs.. for companies that don't need brick and mortar.

Well if the only jobs left are ones only humans can do you are left with very menial tasks or ones that require face to face interactions. I understand your argument that industrialization has gone through similar upheavals but this is a completely new paradigm. We are talking about software. Software does not need anyone to manufacture

Yep.. but software also opens up all sorts of other jobs. Software has opened all sorts of technologies.. Try analyzing an MRI scan without a computer running software. Can't be done.. so that software in part drove MRI development.. which needs to be made, so on and so forth...

Well if the only jobs left are ones only humans can do you are left with very menial tasks or ones that require face to face interactions

Or ones in which people prefer face to face interactions. again.. if we were being "only left with these jobs".. then we should be experiencing huge unemployment.. oops.. we are not.

We are not talking about industrialization. we are talking about technological innovation. Mark Zuckerberg writes a program with his buddies.. and its worth a hundred million. WHY is it worth a hundred million? Because often.. that program allows people... TO MAKE THINGS...
Because now companies that produce goods.. can send me adds on my facebook.. and let me know about their product.. which increases demand for their product. Because there are advertisements for services.. because I know care that I have a phone that will take pictures (creating demand).. because I like to post pictures of my hunts on facebook... The only reason these programs are worth anything.. because they meet demand.

Now.. the question is really is that will our educational system.. create the workers that can adapt to a changing environment.. as it has in the past.. that's the issue.

 

[jaeger19]

The discussions I've seen by people who have thought about the issue far more than I and who are far smarter is really about the kind of jobs in this new world. What's changed is the ability to invent something - and 3D printing is one example - and distribute it effectively costlessly across the globe with a click of a mouse or mobile phone, then send it to a printer somewhere, at a local business, and have it made to order, and humans are barely needed at any of those steps. There are a few highly skilled people who are in demand, but when by definition half the population is of below average intelligence, what will be the value they add in this process that's NOT a low skill job with low pay?
?

Right.. the old.. what will all the stupid people do theorem. Well ..here is the thing.. what is "below average intelligence" really mean?. Just a couple of generations ago.. it was rare to graduate highschool and when you did it was a big deal.. most of the population had an elementary reading level.. if that. Now my kids take classes in highschool that two generations ago would be the last year in college.... We really have not even begun to get close to the limits of human intelligence and potential.. .. The question really is whether our educational system can adapt as it has in the past.. to the educational needs of the future.

The transition to 'services' from goods has kind of decimated the blue collar workforce, and yes millions of jobs have emerged to replace production jobs, but they're OFTEN low skill, low value added, and low pay for the most part. My mother in law is 88 and she employs a kind of mini army of people - nurses, nurses aids, a physical therapist/trainer, people who do her laundry, yard, and clean her room, do her sheets etc. but all those except the skilled healthcare jobs are relatively low skill and low pay. We'll see MORE of that, and the question is how to justify good wages for that army?

And I would bet.. that if we were to look at what you mother in law pays.. or more likely her Medicaid... pays for those services.. you would see that it was a HUGE amount.. despite the supposedly "low skill" of those performing it. And why is that? because the demand is high.. I would bet if she is in a nursing home.. the insurance is paying 9 grand a month, assisted livings 5 grand or more if its home services.. it would be 3-4 grand a month depending. . And folks are getting rich off it. the issue really is not that those jobs are "low skill" or have low value.. they have high value.. that's why they cost so much.. the problem is that despite that demand.. the worker is not benefiting from that... and its not because its "low skill"...face it.. those people that do her laundry.. yard and clean her room. Do they really have 'less skill".. than my uncle did when he pushed a button in a shovel plant in the 1970's making 15 dollars an hour? the answer is no. Its that the mechanisms that gave workers the ability to apply wage pressure have deteriorated or been lost.

thousands of them, and they've cut out several layers of people in the average pharmacy, including dozens (?) of pharmacists, manually taking orders and putting pills in bottles, etc

hmmm..

The job movement for pharmacists appears to be inching up a little for 2017, part of a long-term job trend that shows a slight uptick in the overall number of pharmacy jobs, according to government statistics.

Employment for pharmacists is expected to increase about three percent from 2014 to 2024, according to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Total employment is projected to grow from 293,000 to 302,000 jobs.

Sooo.. employment for pharmacists is growing.

What's their role in this new AI dominated economy?

Okay.. here is the thing.. so lets say you are right.. and all these jobs are going to go poof. Who is going to buy the products that AI produces?

Please answer that.

 

[Vadinho]

Yawn....

Except we need migrant workers to work the fields... so they weren;t replaced.

Yet at full employment

But the internet also created all sorts of other jobs.. for companies that don't need brick and mortar.



Yep.. but software also opens up all sorts of other jobs. Software has opened all sorts of technologies.. Try analyzing an MRI scan without a computer running software. Can't be done.. so that software in part drove MRI development.. which needs to be made, so on and so forth...

Or ones in which people prefer face to face interactions. again.. if we were being "only left with these jobs".. then we should be experiencing huge unemployment.. oops.. we are not.

We are not talking about industrialization. we are talking about technological innovation. Mark Zuckerberg writes a program with his buddies.. and its worth a hundred million. WHY is it worth a hundred million? Because often.. that program allows people... TO MAKE THINGS...
Because now companies that produce goods.. can send me adds on my facebook.. and let me know about their product.. which increases demand for their product. Because there are advertisements for services.. because I know care that I have a phone that will take pictures (creating demand).. because I like to post pictures of my hunts on facebook... The only reason these programs are worth anything.. because they meet demand.

Now.. the question is really is that will our educational system.. create the workers that can adapt to a changing environment.. as it has in the past.. that's the issue.

The plan cannot just include the best and brightest when you are responsible for an entire nation. Sorry, but a good plan accounts for everyone. I am sorry to reveal to you the truth. Automation, software, AI and the corporate demand to cut costs is going to make good paying jobs a privilege for only a few. What should we do about all those good people who do not keep up? The bottom line is that unless you account for the masses, they will one day kick your ass.

 

[JasperL]

Right.. the old.. what will all the stupid people do theorem. Well ..here is the thing.. what is "below average intelligence" really mean?. Just a couple of generations ago.. it was rare to graduate highschool and when you did it was a big deal.. most of the population had an elementary reading level.. if that. Now my kids take classes in highschool that two generations ago would be the last year in college.... We really have not even begun to get close to the limits of human intelligence and potential.. .. The question really is whether our educational system can adapt as it has in the past.. to the educational needs of the future.

But that's not really the point - who is dumb or smart. It's that one person or a small team can program a printing program for a phone, and it can be distributed worldwide at no cost. We've never seen that kind of costless distribution system before, or the means to turn ideas into products with virtually no humans needed except that guy who did the design.

How many people work as cashiers? We're fast approaching a world where they'll be unnecessary. Forget self checkout - goods will have RFID chips and you'll just put them in a bag and walk out, and it'll charge it to your mobile phone or watch. I'm skeptical about 'self-driving' in the near term, but what's going to happen with truckers when a computer takes a shipment in LA and drives to NYC without stopping, except for diesel?

And I would bet.. that if we were to look at what you mother in law pays.. or more likely her Medicaid... pays for those services.. you would see that it was a HUGE amount.. despite the supposedly "low skill" of those performing it. And why is that? because the demand is high.. I would bet if she is in a nursing home.. the insurance is paying 9 grand a month, assisted livings 5 grand or more if its home services.. it would be 3-4 grand a month depending. . And folks are getting rich off it. the issue really is not that those jobs are "low skill" or have low value.. they have high value.. that's why they cost so much.. the problem is that despite that demand.. the worker is not benefiting from that... and its not because its "low skill"...face it.. those people that do her laundry.. yard and clean her room. Do they really have 'less skill".. than my uncle did when he pushed a button in a shovel plant in the 1970's making 15 dollars an hour? the answer is no. Its that the mechanisms that gave workers the ability to apply wage pressure have deteriorated or been lost.

I agree with that, but how's that going to change for the better when we get further into this new world, and entire job classifications are going to go away or be reduced by half? Look at median wages for the past 40 years. Or even better, since the 'technology' revolution began in earnest in the 1990s. Basically flat for over two decades, even with a runup in the last few years after several straight years of jobs growth, zero interest rates, and running up $trillions in budget deficits.

hmmm..

The job movement for pharmacists appears to be inching up a little for 2017, part of a long-term job trend that shows a slight uptick in the overall number of pharmacy jobs, according to government statistics.

So as the massive baby boomer bubble hits retirement and gets old, to service all those newly old as they enter old age and demand for pharma services grows, jobs are barely moving. It's not exactly proving my point, but it's getting there.

Okay.. here is the thing.. so lets say you are right.. and all these jobs are going to go poof. Who is going to buy the products that AI produces?

Please answer that.

That's the problem. We're already facing it. Just consider the 2000s. We had a 'booming' economy, but wages barely moved. And much of that 'boom' was tied to increases in consumer debt and mortgages (roughly $7 trillion increase in Household debt, or a doubling in just 7 years, forgetting government debt or corporate debt), and so those increases in demand weren't sustainable and were followed by a crash and burn. So, yeah, it's a big problem lots of economists have been talking about for years - sustainable demand comes from sustainable wage increases, not increases in debt, and it's been decades since we've seen consistent wage growth, despite GDP growth and overall growth. It's going to a smaller and smaller share of the most highly skilled 10-20%. And no one can paint a picture of how MORE AI, more robots, more automation, improves those things, except your way which is 'the market will find a way.' Maybe it will but it might not!

 

[Media_Truth]

Minimum wage are for high school kids. Not families.

You should research before you speak.

5 facts about the minimum wage | Pew Research Center

Less than half (45%) of the 2.6 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2015 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 23.3% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 2.6 million represents less than 2% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)
...
About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS’s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of “near-minimum” U.S. workers – those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You should research before you speak.

5 facts about the minimum wage | Pew Research Center

Less than half (45%) of the 2.6 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2015 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 23.3% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 2.6 million represents less than 2% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)
...
About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS’s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of “near-minimum” U.S. workers – those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education.

Yes, how times have changed. I guess you are content with not making life as good as our parents had it.

 

[Conservative]

You should research before you speak.

5 facts about the minimum wage | Pew Research Center

Less than half (45%) of the 2.6 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2015 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 23.3% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 2.6 million represents less than 2% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)
...
About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS’s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of “near-minimum” U.S. workers – those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education.

First of all we have a labor force of about over 161 million people and you are focusing on 2.6 million

Second, Federal Minimum wage employment is the only employment being counted by BLS regarding minimum wage as many states set their own

third, competition is what mandates what a company will pay and when you set a minimum wage that is the maximum wage that many companies have to pay.'

Just another skewed argument by someone who doesn't understand that states can set their own and each state has different taxes and different cost of livings. Those state operating on the Federal Minimum wage tend to have the lowest cost of living. You can live in TX on the Federal Minimum wage where as the State of California has it its own minimum wage much higher.

Fourth, whose fault is it someone works for the Federal Minimum wage? Does personal responsibility reside anywhere in that world in which you live?

This is another issue promoted by the left that they have no business getting involved in but it does serve their union base as unions based their contracts off minimum wage adjustments

 

[jaeger19]

The plan cannot just include the best and brightest when you are responsible for an entire nation. .

The plan does NOT just include the best and brightest. That is NOT what I am saying. EVER.

Automation, software, AI and the corporate demand to cut costs is going to make good paying jobs a privilege for only a few.

No its not. Just like computers and corporate demands to cut costs die not make good paying jobs a privilege for only a few.

Or any other technological advancement. What they do. is open doors for MORE jobs and more wealth.

In the 1970's, 1980's.. my uncle was getting paid 18 dollars an hour to pull a lever in a shovel factory. Sorry but he did not have "more skill".. than the lady who is doing the laundry at dittoheads mother in laws assisted living. Yet.. she is getting paid less. while.. the VALUE of that service is very high.. certainly the owner of the facility is getting rich from it. the issue is not "low skill".. the issue is wage pressure.

What should we do about all those good people who do not keep up?

how elitist. why do you think that we have reached the limit of human intelligence and ability when it comes to "the masses"? Sorry but we heard all that before and yet humans just keep adapting in abilities.

 

[jaeger19]

But that's not really the point - who is dumb or smart. It's that one person or a small team can program a printing program for a phone, and it can be distributed worldwide at no cost.
!

just like the world had never seen the wheel, the train, the computer, and so forth. First.. you forget that that one person or a small team can program that printing program and get paid for it.. ONLY IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE INCOME. So.. its somewhat of a self limiter.. eliminate so many jobs.. virtually no one has income.. and whats the need for the printing program. See you don't seem to see the forest because of the trees. sure.. that person develops that printing program for the phone... well its going to be used.. perhaps by your mother in laws nurses aides.. or that gardner.. or someone else to develop more jobs and more services and products.

How many people work as cashiers?

how many people worked in the whaling industry.. how many people made buggy whips.. how many people made vcrs. how many vcr rental shops were there in your town? the nature of the technology that it changes but here is the thing.. when one job or two is lost.. 6 others get produced. The question is whether your education system can adapt to the demand for those job skills.

I agree with that, but how's that going to change for the better when we get further into this new world, and entire job classifications are going to go away or be reduced by half? Look at median wages for the past 40 years. Or even better, since the 'technology' revolution began in earnest in the 1990s. .
.

Well.. things will only get better if we as a nation focus on what the problems ACTUALLY are. Right now. we are in a giant distraction phase. Amazing that with all the information available.. we tolerate and even enjoy. the disinformation that's been spouted. Not just by repubilcans.. or even democrats.. but from all sorts of sources.

On the other hand.. maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Its happened before. Remember the litterbug campaign, and the native American crying? All made up in the 1970's as an ad campaign by phillip morris, Kraft etc, coca cola etc.. to get people to believe that THEY were the problem with trash.. and not the fact that these major companies had switched from renewable reusable things like coke bottles, milk bottles and tobacco pouches and cigarrete cases.. to disposable packaging.
So we have a lot of that going on now.. and so what we need to look at.. is the real problem with wages. We have low unemployment... workers are more efficient than ever.. yet.. we have low wage pressure... why? Illegal immigration is part of the issue.
Anti union laws is also part of the issue. the expansion of the work force (now women working as well as men.. has vastly expanded our workforce).. not to mention older people working. our welfare system has contributed.. as well as possible the easy credit.
Education is an issue as is the decrease in government technological development.

When we start seeing the real problems.. rather than.. "we need to tax rich people at 90% and redistribute that income (and where does that redistribution go? Wait.. back into the rich peoples pockets who own the businesses that you buy services and products from).

So as the massive baby boomer bubble hits retirement and gets old, to service all those newly old as they enter old age and demand for pharma services grows, jobs are barely moving. .

and that's likely because the supply of pharmacists.. cannot keep up with the demand for pharmacists.. and thus there has been a demand for technology to fill that gap.

That's the problem. We're already facing it. Just consider the 2000s. We had a 'booming' economy, but wages barely moved

. Bingo.. so you just proved my point. the issue is NOT massive unemployment.. that "whole sectors are losing jobs".. that the masses aren;t keeping up and can't get jobs. We are running low unemployment.. and yet.. very little wage pressure. THATS what we need to be focused on.. in removing the things that have stood in the way of increasing wage pressure. things like illegal immigration, anti union laws, education to some degree.. welfare to some degree.. and so on.

It's going to a smaller and smaller share of the most highly skilled 10-20%.

now THATS Bull crap. Its not "going to the most highly skilled 10-20%. Its going to a very low skilled but extremely rich and connected 1%. Trump is a great example. Put Trump in a household making what my parents made? And trump probably doesn;t even graduate highschool and is lucky to keep a job as a janitor in a hotel.

We have to get back to more social mobility.. and removing the barriers to wage pressure. Not by arbitrarily and artificially "redistributing income".. that's a failure right from the get go.

 

[JasperL]

The plan does NOT just include the best and brightest. That is NOT what I am saying. EVER.

No its not. Just like computers and corporate demands to cut costs die not make good paying jobs a privilege for only a few.

Or any other technological advancement. What they do. is open doors for MORE jobs and more wealth.

In the 1970's, 1980's.. my uncle was getting paid 18 dollars an hour to pull a lever in a shovel factory. Sorry but he did not have "more skill".. than the lady who is doing the laundry at dittoheads mother in laws assisted living. Yet.. she is getting paid less. while.. the VALUE of that service is very high.. certainly the owner of the facility is getting rich from it. the issue is not "low skill".. the issue is wage pressure.

how elitist. why do you think that we have reached the limit of human intelligence and ability when it comes to "the masses"? Sorry but we heard all that before and yet humans just keep adapting in abilities.

And yet wages have been stagnant for decades. Since the tech boom began in earnest, roughly 0% gain in median wages over two decades, even after the recent runup in a tight jobs market fueled by near 0% interest rates and $trillions in government stimulus.

You also keep insisting the problem isn't the type of low skill jobs being created, but "wage pressure." OK, IMO it's both, but I agree to some extent, so how do we create that wage pressure? There has to be some lever somewhere, and the hard part is figuring out the right one and getting it done. Unions are one - well, we're seeing unions going extinct. Another is government transfers, and certainly the GOP is solidly lined up against that. Minimum wage increases are perhaps better than nothing but actually poor at improving wages for the masses and really badly targeted.

 

[jaeger19]

And yet wages have been stagnant for decades. Since the tech boom began in earnest, roughly 0% gain in median wages over two decades, even after the recent runup in a tight jobs market fueled by near 0% interest rates and $trillions in government stimulus.

You also keep insisting the problem isn't the type of low skill jobs being created, but "wage pressure." OK, IMO it's both, but I agree to some extent, so how do we create that wage pressure? There has to be some lever somewhere, and the hard part is figuring out the right one and getting it done. Unions are one - well, we're seeing unions going extinct. Another is government transfers, and certainly the GOP is solidly lined up against that. Minimum wage increases are perhaps better than nothing but actually poor at improving wages for the masses and really badly targeted.

Right.. so again. its not the loss of jobs that is the problem. its wage pressure.

Issues? Illegal immigration which undermines our labor laws, and unions.
Anti union laws that make it difficult for workers to organizes... things like "right to work laws"..
Education and costs of education. We don't education well enough.. and that cost of education is too high.
Legal immigration
and decrease in government technological development.

those are things that we need to address:

Raises in the minimum wage? TERRIBLE idea.. because 1. it does not address the fundamental problems of wage pressure 2. it would likely cause more unemployment or decrease in wages.

Government transfers? direct transfers like welfare? TERRIBLE idea.. won't work.. who benefits from welfare? Where does that money go.. it goes directly to the ones that one the production of goods and services. In fact.. one of the reasons for the decrease wage pressure IS the welfare system.

When I was a middle manager for a large healthcare company.. I wanted to raise wages for the CNA's. I could show with research that raising wages to attract the best CNA's actually saved us money because two highly motivated aides could do more work and make our facilities run more effectively and efficiently than 4 and sometimes 5 CNA's that were half butting it.

I got shot down.. because the wage increases I suggested to recruit those better CNA's would cause employees to lose their Medicaid.

 

[JasperL]

Right.. so again. its not the loss of jobs that is the problem. its wage pressure.

Issues? Illegal immigration which undermines our labor laws, and unions.

Globalization has 10X the impact of illegal immigration on wages. Technology has a bigger impact than globalization. Blaming it on illegals is just victimizing the least powerful, who were in fact invited here by the plutocrats and allowed to work here by their government enablers.

And you are wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I argue that the destruction of jobs is a problem because we're obliterating entire job categories and replacing them with low wage, low skill service jobs. Your counterargument is the market will find something for those displaced workers to do! Great! Well, when illegals come in and take bottom rung jobs like hotel cleaning, agriculture, meat packing, landscaping and they free up all those educated white people, where are the jobs, that will be created when we imported cheap labor to do those tasks and that have freed up educated whites to do something more productive than pick berries in the hot sun 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in season?

Why is the impact virtuous when technology obliterates a million cashiers jobs, but pernicious/destructive when it's illegals taking those bottom rung jobs?

Anti union laws that make it difficult for workers to organizes... things like "right to work laws"..
Education and costs of education. We don't education well enough.. and that cost of education is too high.
Legal immigration
and decrease in government technological development.

I'll just say I agree with at least some of that which is why I vote Democratic now.

The problem is you are for unions, and free or cheaper education and more technology spending by government, but the GOP will cut off their right arms before allowing unions a foothold where they've been obliterated, and the last thing the Fortune 500 and the billionaire donor class want is workers with more bargaining power, so in what reality do we bring back unions, because it's not this one.

And the problem for education is education to do what? We've got 1.5 billion Chinese or so, just as smart on average, who make a fraction of the pay. What kind of education will bring back those jobs in a globalized world?

Government transfers? direct transfers like welfare? TERRIBLE idea.. won't work.. who benefits from welfare? Where does that money go.. it goes directly to the ones that one the production of goods and services. In fact.. one of the reasons for the decrease wage pressure IS the welfare system.

When I was a middle manager for a large healthcare company.. I wanted to raise wages for the CNA's. I could show with research that raising wages to attract the best CNA's actually saved us money because two highly motivated aides could do more work and make our facilities run more effectively and efficiently than 4 and sometimes 5 CNA's that were half butting it.

I got shot down.. because the wage increases I suggested to recruit those better CNA's would cause employees to lose their Medicaid.

The answer the rest of the world has come up isn't to not pay raises, but provide universal healthcare, and in large part get employers out of the health insurance business entirely in most of the world. That's just an excuse, but even if valid (and I don't think it is on a macro level) the problem is you're opposed to that when none of the other items on your list are even seriously ON THE TABLE. I think healthcare could get passed because employers would LOVE to be relieved of that massive burden, and it would do a lot to level playing fields between small business and the behemoths who can use their size to lower healthcare costs versus a 10 man shop.

It's the same thing with minimum wages. Yes, they're bad, but given the NOTHING on the table as substitutes, they are less bad than the NOTHING which is often the alternative.