Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Millions of jobs to dissapear as robotics advance

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by jdog, Oct 4, 2015.

Page 11 of 25
  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have an interesting anecdotal story related to the WPA because my "grandfather" spent a year working for the WPA between 1934-1935. I have a small swivel mirror in the bathroom that he actually made at a WPA camp when he was there. It has no bearing overall on the discussion but it is still an interesting story.

    My grandmother became a widow with four children and married my "grandfather" that also had four children in the 1920's. They were successful small farmers in Colorado and had the opportunity to sell their farm and purchase a better farm in another part of Colorado. By chance the sale of there farm was on Friday, March 3, 1933 and they started moving their livestock and household goods from the old farm to the new farm over the weekend. The money from the sale was deposited in the bank and my grandmother went to the bank on Monday, March 6th, to pick up a bank check to pay for the new farm. The rest is history:

    http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/22

    The banks were closed when my grandmother went to get the bank check for the purchase of the new farm and FDR's actions left a successful farming family destitute, homeless, and virtually pennyless. The children were basically split up to live with relatives. My grandfather was left a broken man that never fully recovered from this. As noted between 1934-35 he spent a year at a WPA camp and later a friend of his taught him to be a barber (I have his barber tools). In later years he did manage to obtain some of the money from the bank but it only equaled about 10 cents on the dollar and dribbled in over several years.

    There has been a general "hatred" of FDR in the family since then because he financially destroyed the family. It was just "bad luck" some might say but the negative financial impact to families by FDR was certainly felt by many and personally by my family. In a way it's sort of like former President Bush who's actions "saved the bankers and Wall Street" under TARP but destroyed many of the lives on "Main Street" in the process. FDR saved the banks while screwing the American people.
     
    Shiva_TD, Jan 8, 2016
    #251
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In that case, getting every family or aspiring family the option of that $50k yearly income would be a good goal to shoot for.
    Since most families have at least two working parents, that's $25k per person, or about twice the poverty threshold for a single person,
    and about $10k over the threshold for two. Such a family of four would then make about twice the poverty threshold for a 4-person family.

    That alone splits the yearly cost of phase 1 in half. But like I was saying, there is no reason why we need to reach even that level of direct coverage to start out with.
    We could hire fewer people and or we could pay less (between $11k and $25k) and still make progress towards our goal, as keep in mind the positive multiplier effect such spending has on the private economy as it relates to wages and number of jobs.

    I wasn't meaning to suggest that it couldn't be both. The point I was making was that as more jobs are automated, the location of value may shift, but the amount of value in the economy which could be potentially taxed, either remains constant or increases....but it does not decrease. As such, it makes sense imo that at least a portion of the value gained by automation, be put towards rehiring the displaced to perform some alternate role.

    Which is why you bump the government's "official numbers" (U3) up to the 15.572mill (U6),
    which accounts for all those "under-employed" folks as well as the marginally attached/discouraged workers.
    But again, going all the way up to 90+ mill is way overboard....

    I'm not completely sure I follow exactly what it is you're trying to say here....but generally speaking,
    its better to base such calculation off of effective tax rates as opposed to marginal rates.
    According to CBO, the top quintiles average effective 2010 2011 tax rates were 24% and 23.4% respectively.

    Also, as detailed above, we can halve the maximum yearly cost of phase 1 based on the $25k per person income.
    That comes out to $389,300mill of new spending per year. (for reasons previously mentioned, it can actually be a lot less, but we'll go with it)
    Again using 2011 CBO numbers, we can see that 24mill top quintile households have an average before-tax income of $245,700,
    making their combined yearly income $5,896,800mill. $389,300mill would be 6.6% of that (or $16k per household).

    Now, I agree with you that for both fairness and sustainability reasons, the top 0.1% (and benefactors of passive income) need to be assuming a larger share of our current,
    and any future tax burdens, as compared to everyone else. But also note that I do not think, and am not suggesting that the top 0.1%, the top 1%, or the top quintile take on the entire burden of this proposal alone. The spread of the burden can of course be shifted as needed, but at present, I am only attempting to prove that there exists enough income at the higher levels overall to fund it. Again, a 6.6% average increase on the top quintile would be more than enough.

    So, are you suggesting that the top quintile wouldn't be able to bear an average 6.6% increase in taxes?

    https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...ibution-of-Income-Taxes_Supplemental_0_0.xlsx

    ....Steals labor?.......It's not like those companies own those employees you know....especially when the employees aren't even getting paid!
    .....And to that end, last I heard the situation was exactly the opposite of what you just described.
    I had heard that the construction industry was actually the worst industry for having the most unemployed construction workers versus the number of jobs being offered.
    ....Has that changed recently, and if so do you have a source for it?

    job_stats.jpg

    Also note, there's no reason why private industries can't be involved directly with such a program, there would just need to be a few guidelines put in place for them, and then government could simply provide the funding while private enterprise managed the work. That's actually similar to how parts of the recent stimulus was structured.
    On another note,..if there really is a problem with there not being enough people with the needed skills, then part of the project could consist simply of training more people to have them.

    As such, it makes little sense to
    a) continue to have so many idle workers, and
    b) continue to let the top 0.1% et al get away with paying such low effective tax rates.

    While I question the urgency, I definitely agree that a balanced budget is a good thing to strive for.
    If Republicans don't want to do what's right for America, they should be voted out....simple as that.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Jan 8, 2016
    #252
  3. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe you're grossly underestimating the costs based upon history.

    We had the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that pumped $105.3 billion into infrastructure projects that created between an estimated 640,000 to perhaps 1 million short term jobs and only part of those related to the infrastructure projects. Yes, that money was basically split over two years but so were the number of jobs. To think that more jobs can be created for only a small faction of 1% of that cost is a pipe-dream even if the jobs only pay $25,000/yr which isn't enough to support a family in the United States.

    You know who really made money? It was the contractors and not the workers that individually benefited the most financially from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

    The government is incapable of managing a WPA program and the work would have to be contracted out to private enterprise where the owners (contractors) end up benefiting the most from the government spending.

    Even though I'm a libertarian I believe the greatest way to benefit the overall economy is to first address under-compensation. Almost 50% of American households don't have the income necessary to fund their mandatory minimum cost of living. The under-compensation is generally made-up for with welfare expenditures that at the federal government level alone equal about $500 billion a year. Increasing compensation doesn't stimulate the economy because it merely replaces welfare assistance by the government but it would free up about $250 billion/yr currently being spent by the government on welfare assistance. If you want to advocate government "work projects" then this is the best means of securing funding for such a proposal.

    As you know I have addressed the current favoritism in our tax codes for wealthy high income households in another thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/399015-creating-fair-taxation.html

    It was the best proposal (not a perfect proposal) in addressing fair taxation that I could come up with. It is a flat rate income tax above median income that is inherently progressive based upon the "effective tax rate" of the household with the advantage that it always results in a balanced budget.
     
    Shiva_TD, Jan 8, 2016
    #253
  4. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While it may be a wonderful thought the reality is, and has always been, that the "typcical" voter is generally uninformed when it comes to the facts and their votes are overwhelmingly determined by the political propaganda that's based upon half-truths and misrepresentations from both the Democrats and Republicans in support of their political agendas.

    To expect voters to vote based upon the facts is to wish for something that's never existed in American politics.
     
    Shiva_TD, Jan 8, 2016
    #254
  5. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well your under the wrong impression. We are not a Democracy and never were one, at one time though we were a REPUBLIC, Try saying the Pledge of Allegiance sometime and you will notice it is stated as such.
    But that was long ago and we have had 0.0% of self determination for a very long time.
    Even when you think you are deciding an issue for yourself, you are pissing upwind because the information you use to make that decision was manufactured for your consumption and fed to you through controlled propaganda outlets know as the "media".
    We have not had a independent press since the 1970's when the corporate world began to buy the news and to shape it to their agenda. Today what passes for news makes the control of the press by the Soviets in the 60's look like free press.
     
    jdog, Jan 8, 2016
    #255
  6. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Then do your own research. Complaining that you can't set your own course, because the data you're getting for free isn't good enough... wow.




    ​
     
    Taxpayer, Jan 8, 2016
    #256
  7. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the Fed had just sent every taxpayer in the US $10,000 instead of rescuing AIG and bailing out Wall Street in 2009 the economy would have recovered overnight and nobody would have lost their home or their job and the auto manufacturers would not have gone bankrupt. They spent that much bailing out Wall Street.
    The stock market would have collapsed and all the big banks and hedge funds would go under. There would have been a wholesale collapse of the derivatives markets, which would keep them from ever being even contemplated in the future. $100Trillions would have disappeared from the markets.

    And that would have been a good thing.
     
    unrealist42, Jan 8, 2016
    #257
  8. AlphaMale

    AlphaMale Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    8
    You do realize the U.S. has over 300 million people in it. If you give 10,000 to each of them that is a lot of money how can we afford that? Giving money away has never and will never poverty.
     
    AlphaMale, Jan 17, 2016
    #258
  9. lynnlynn

    lynnlynn New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Population control will have to become a top issue in the near future.
     
    lynnlynn, Jan 17, 2016
    #259
  10. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be against gods will....
    We should be fruitful and multiply like rabbits
     
    ARDY, Jan 17, 2016
    #260
  11. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    360million people but only about 50 million who pay Federal income taxes. $10,000 each would be about $5Trillion, which is less than the Fed gave to Wall Street. You are right, giving money away will never end poverty, but I guess you think it is OK to save $Billionaires and let the rest of the economy collapse if you had the choice of who to give $5Trillion to.
     
    unrealist42, Jan 20, 2016
    #261
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By saying that the WPA was a success, I mean nothing more than to say that it did what its founders set out for it to do.
    To alleviate a specific problem.....the same problem we have now, and the same problem which will only grow as automation becomes more prevalent.
    By that measure, it was a success, and the things you listed don't detract from that. None of that is to imply though, that the original WPA was perfect.
    Which is why I always suggest that any new one should be "modernized/improved", to bring it in line with today's standards and make it even more effective than the last.

    For instance,...do you have any reason to believe that concerns 1-4 listed by you could not easily be addressed and changed in a new WPA??

    As for 5, I am not suggesting having WPA workers take over in areas where the private sector is already seeing to everyone's needs.
    There are plenty of areas where the private sector isn't cutting the mustard, and I would suggest WPA work start there.
    Secondly, it is certainly feasible that the private sector itself be involved in WPA-style projects directly.

    BTW, I'm still curious as to what you thought of my comment, "That wealth distribution becomes impossible and...wealth redistribution unavoidable once all the wealth becomes privately owned."
    Do you agree with that statement?

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Jan 31, 2016
    #262
  13. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as I'm not suggesting the original WPA was perfect in all ways, I am in no way trying to imply that FDR was perfect either. But as you implied, this isn't about FDR...
    In order to ensure a better future, we would be wise to both heed the lessons of the past while simultaneously ensuring that we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Jan 31, 2016
    #263
  14. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    The bailout cost $618 billion. About $390 billion has been paid back, with about $294 billion additional (in investment or interest income on the loans).(*) Taxpayers made money on the bailout.





    ​
     
    Taxpayer, Jan 31, 2016
    #264
  15. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Taxpayers lost $5Trillion in accumulated wealth thanks to the bailout going to Wall Street instead of Main Street.
     
    unrealist42, Feb 2, 2016
    #265
  16. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    ... how do you figure?



    ​
     
    Taxpayer, Feb 2, 2016
    #266
  17. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think there is anything wrong with my math.
    Also,.....as much as I appreciate the idea that the $389,300 mill number I mentioned is a small cost relative to anything,
    it is definitely not a 1% fraction of the $105.3 billion infrastructure portion of the stimulus package.
    In fact, it is nearly 4 times that amount, but I can certainly see how one could get confused,....
    its an easy mistake to make, especially since I expressed the value in millions.

    Just to reiterate though.....:
    $389,300 million > $105.3 billion, because
    $389,300 million = $389.3 billion, and
    $389.3 billion > $105.3 billion

    ...The government has done it before,....so what exactly are you basing that assertion on?

    If the government ends up contracting a portion of the work out to private contractors
    there isn't necessarily anything wrong with this, as the goals of the program could still be met.
    And of course the contractor will benefit from such an arrangement,..........to ensure however
    that contractors don't benefit too much (such that the benefits to the rest of the country are reduced)
    I'd suggest simply having a compete process between a wide number of potential contractors for each of the projects,
    as well as setting up rules for the contractors such as, they must pay a minimum of x dollars per hour to their employees etc.

    Yes, I agree that undercompensation is definitely a problem, but the how to fix it?
    It is my view that there are only two possible courses of action the government could take to resolve that issue.
    We either mandate higher compensation, eg: by increasing the minimum wage,....or.....we create an economic situation in which the private entities are motivated to increase the compensation themselves.....

    Now,...I definitely don't consider myself an opponent of minimum wage increases,....but it is my view that they are not the most effective way of dealing with these issues. First of all, unless you tie the increases to something such as cost of living or inflation,....you basically end up in a situation where every few years you need to increase it again or you end up right back in the same situation you started in. And even if you do tie the increases to something, you still risk the occasional market fluctuations, and then there's the fact that such increases don't really do anything for the unemployed,... and may even make it more difficult for the unemployed to get a job. It would make much more sense in my opinion, to solve the long-term undercompensation issue by soaking up portions of that unemployed/underemployed sector by having them work on government-sponsored projects at an appropriate wage, and thereby forcing private sector undercompensators to either increase their compensation or risk losing workers/not being able to attract new ones due to them taking on the better paying government roles.

    ....basically, if you give the workers more/better options for employment, then their compensation in the private sector will naturally improve as a result.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 18, 2016
    #267
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excuse my interruption.

    $389,300 million is LESS THAN (not greater than) $105.3 billion
    $389,300 million DOES NOT EQUAL $389.3 billion
    Yes, $389.3 billion > $105.3 billion but that's only one out of the three statements made that was correct.

    Bottom line your math seems to be highly flawed. We can also note that the 2009 Reinvestment Act wasn't funded and instead it relied on borrowing that wouldn't be repaid so it's not a good economic model for anything. You can't borrow your way to prosperity.
     
    Shiva_TD, Apr 18, 2016
    #268
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have now double and triple checked my math.....It is not incorrect.
    Furthermore, all three of my latest statements were accurate,....yours were wrong.

    $389,300 million is not LESS THAN $105.3 billion
    $389,300 million DOES EQUAL $389.3 billion

    If you disagree with that,...you must be using some deprecated (archaic) understanding of what a billion means.....
    Perhaps one of these million to billion converters will help you.... :/

    http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/millionbillion.php
    https://www.easycalculation.com/million-cal.php

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 18, 2016
    #269
  20. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If voter unawareness is such an issue, and perhaps it is, then we (those of us in the know) should do all we can to inform them...
     
    Meta777, Apr 19, 2016
    #270
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They must want to be informed first...... and if they want to be informed then they are. The problem is that many choose not to be informed.
     
    Shiva_TD, Apr 19, 2016
    #271
  22. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Republican solution, of course, "get a job".
     
    Phoebe Bump, Apr 19, 2016
    #272
  23. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^That part isn't necessarily true.

    At any rate,...however much we feel it would make things easier for us (the informed) if the uninformed were to put forth more of an effort to inform themselves,
    it is still a good idea in my opinion, for us (the informed) to do what we can to inform them ourselves or to at least make it easier for them to become more informed,...
    for their sakes and ours...

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 19, 2016
    #273
  24. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't understand your objection, as a republic is A TYPE OF DEMOCRACY.
    Point being being that we the people get a say in how our country is run. We choose, through our votes,
    who gets elected to write law, and if they don't do what we want, then we kick them out and choose someone who will.
    To reiterate,...an overwhelming majority of the populous, the voters, are not simply going to stand idly by while elites condemn them to death.
    And the ongoing democratic nature of our society will ensure they get their way in the end. (preferably sooner rather than latter)

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 20, 2016
    #274
  25. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those "millions" of people will be supported by the government, who in turn will increase tax rates on those who still work and an increase in corporate rates as well. The employers will have to learn that they cannot win in this scenario.
     
    gamewell45, Apr 20, 2016
    #275
Page 11 of 25

Share This Page