Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Do we need to go over the stats yet again?

1. This does not make me wrong.

2. This is an exaggeration.

Only in your world where the economy is a collection of anecdotes.

Or because the economy is a $20 trillion behemoth that can't be explained by Sebby Thinks About Stuff.

I can't predict the future. Wow. What an admission.

But we know where the new good jobs have been: green energy, medical technology, technology more broadly, research, etc. The new administration is proposing we cut back in each of these areas significantly.

We know where we gutted stable jobs: local and state government.

We know where there will be a growing number of jobs, unfortunately many of which aren't high quality: health care. Oh, and vape shops! And around here, bike shops seem to be springing up everywhere. (No, those last two aren't really serious) ETA: Oh! And breweries. How did I forget breweries?

And you actually know what we can be doing to help. Invest in repairing and building better infrastructure. Foster the continued growth of green energy (solar and wind employ a whole bunch of people). Invest in medical and other research that create new companies and industries, and new products for our aging population. Invest in education for a better prepared workforce of the future (also providing jobs).

Our government, and most of the world's, clamped the breaks during the Great Recession and we're still feeling the effect of those bad policy decisions.

This is Trump thinking. If he just saves 1000 here and a 1000 there, soon it will be big numbers!

But yeah, new industries will hire people.

I don't think my skills are special. I think it's going to be awhile before a machine can do them, and even longer before clients are going to trust machines to do them.

The algorithms will need to be able to persuade as well.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Wage stagnation and labor displacement are anecdotes?

See above.

This is Trump thinking. None of these save research creates decent paying jobs in significant numbers. (Nor does old energy development, such as a pipeline.)

And who cares what the administration does? You're arguing with me here. If you'd likje to argue with Trump, go on Twitter. He'll oblige.

True. But a lot of those were redundant and not productive.

Agreed.

Agreed for environmental reasons, not because it creates significant jobs, which it does not.

The private sector does this quite well already, as the old have money. But I've no objection to researching anything medical.

What does that even mean? It's a nice sounding platitude, but it's not specific, and you do realize, if you make too much of something (there's a STEM glut coming in about 10 years), the law of supply and demand dictates...

Agreed that thinking public debt is a major problem is idiocy. Private debt is the serious problem. But Keynesian spending isn't going to fix the labor displacement issue. More and more, it'll just enrich the people who own the robots.

That was the point. Your "there will be so many new jobs... I just haven't a clue where or in what number, or paid how much!" is Trump thinking. Hell, it's something he'd say near exactly.

They will hire new robots and apps. No sane industrialist wants bodies.

You are mistaking what will lead to your obsolescence. The systems in which we work are being modified to work more effectively with machines than humans. Have you not noticed in the past decade or so how much more automated the systems are? It'd harder and harder every day to find a situation in which some form of exclusively human manipulation can effect the result you want. Trust me... As a person who's gotten by as much on charm and looking the part as anything else, the human element is being weeded out of the mix quite aggressively.

The systems are working to make independent thinking obsolete. If we all work in predictable manners, and there are fewer and fewer of us, risk can be better measured and avoided.

An algorithm doesn't need to persuade another algorithm.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

FWIW, I think Sebby is getting the better of Adder in this exchange, but their tedious habit of going back and forth at each other by the sentence makes it hard to follow or join. (Hey, I've done it too.). I'm happy that I and Ms. Slothrop are in jobs not threatened by algorithms.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Yes, 45 thinks that investing in technology creates jobs. That's why he campaigned on it. :rolleyes:

Well, you're the one who didn't vote for his only opponent who had a chance.

(You left yourself wide open there.)

This is a statement of faith, not fact.

Are the streets of Philadelphia as pothole free as they could be? Are teacher student ratios at ideal rates? How about public health staffing? There's productive work that the public sector could be doing and isn't.

374,000 people work in solar.

It doesn't. Very nearly all drug discovery happens with public money first.

Lots of medtech and devices too, but it's not nearly all.

You're confused about what it means to invest in education?? More teachers. More programs to get crappy school up to adequate. More support for students getting higher education. More early childhood education. I'm sure you can think of others.

You really have to stop fixating on the robots. That's a long term issue (medium term at best) and comes with other side effects. Focus on the now to medium term, that you can do something about.

No, it's exactly the opposite. He thinks of the economy as a static thing. If we just save some jobs here and there we'll have jobs. So many jobs. They're great because we saved them.

The economy doesn't work that way. Jobs are created and destroyed all the time. They're created and destroyed by forces that are outside of government control. The job of government is to provide the conditions for markets to sort it out, not pretend that they can predict and completely shape the outcomes.

Which is why you don't like the answers. "How's education going to help Bubba who got laid off by Carrier?" It's not really (I mean, if he's motivated he can get some job training). It's about fostering future growth. That's what we can do.

And yeah, some people are going to get sorted out to a lower lot in life. There's no fix for that.

I've watched for the last two decades how surprisingly slowly automation has come on.

For one frivolous example, my dad bought a speech recognition program in the '90s, hoping he could talk instead of type. It didn't work very well. He never really used it. Comparable technologies still don't work that well. They've improved a lot, but they're still slower than me typing this on a keyboard.

Eventually, they won't be, or we'll have some sort of neural interface that renders them obsolete. But the universal rule of technology adoption seem to me to be that it happens way slower than everyone predicts. (Got an autonomous far yet?)

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Just curious, but to those of you arguing numbers, if low paying service work is replacing high paying union jobs, why have incomes been stable to rising for some time now, in almost all quartiles?

Is it possible some of those service jobs pay ok? Or that the equation isn't quite so simple?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Is that true of medians or just means?

eta: I was under the impression that income for the bottom 95% has been flat for a while.

Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Well, until Our Robot Overlords replace judges and juries and arbitrators and mediators with algorithms, there will always be a place for us who like to go to court swinging free and easy in our Hickeys, shucking and jiving for our clients. I'm safe for the next decade or two, and for beyond that? As Keynes said, in the long run, we're all dead.

*Yes. I am aware of the massive changes that technology has clubbed upside the head of the legal community. But I heard stories as a young lad about how word processors reduced the ranks of secretaries, and of how desktop computers did the same. And the changes in maritime technology drastically reduced the number of cargo ships, which in turn led to the virtual elimination of admiralty practices. Heck, photo copiers destroyed the need for carbon paper, and typewriters eliminated the need for scriveners. Change is a constant.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

A more careful interlocutor would note that I haven't got a lot to offer on income inequality & median wages, but the one I've got is fixated on silly chicken little technophobia.

Wages are just starting to grow again recently, which is small potatoes progress, but aside from general progressive taxation, I don't think anyone has a good answer as to how to re-grow the middle aside from promoting general growth.

And that is very much a political challenge for the center.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I think it's that the high paying union jobs disappeared in the '80s. But I also think Ty's right about flatness.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

and when did your fam start buying Japanese cars?

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

I trust you're well invested. I'm not so confident.

And I mean that as a positive. I think licensing on us should be relaxed to allow for non-lawyers to start crafting precedent for the future.

We are not seers. In many regards, we handcuff and hold back progress. Our monopoly on precedent should be relaxed, slowly, and allow for more viewpoints from other disciplines. And the adversarial system should be reconsidered. From criminal justice to medical malpractice to class actions to commercial litigation (battle of pocketbooks), that system needs a significant readjustment.

We are a massive part of the problem. For the better of society, it is time to overhaul us far more than you've noted above. Mere market correction of our power is insufficient.

The cure is, I believe, removing licensing restrictions.

I've got your picture, I'd like a million of them round my cell.
 

My dad was in the Pacific during WWII (and was a union guy), so we *never* had a Japanese car, TV (Zeniths were made in the US back then), or anything else. He wasn't a fan of German cars, either.

I broke the tradition by buying a used Honda Accord (made in Ohio!) many years later. I do try to buy American - since the Accord, I've returned to the
Ford/Lincoln preferences of my dad. And HSM and Hickey are still made in the US, as are Allen Edmunds. The rest? It ain't easy. Especially when GOP donors push to have products made in certain Pacific islands with low wages and worker abuse as "Made in the USA."

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I know you think this means something on accounta Detroit, as if we'd all bought crappier products the world would stay the same, but I think my Inifiniti purchased in 2006, was the first Japanese car in the family.

The fam mostly had domestic cars - Cadillac (that doesn't look right but spell check), Lincoln, Pontiac, Buick, Saturn - but there were VWs before my memory and an original Z3 my dad still has.

ETA: I use my bike, made by a Wisconsin company although I don't know where they manufacture, more than my Inifiniti. But I have to cop to buying a Dutch made cargo bike too.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Without engaging in the merits (except to say the I profoundly disagree with you), if you think non-lawyers are going to - for a fee - be representing other people in court in the next decade, you are hitting the Bookers a little too hard, amigo. The trend seems to be going the other way ("last gasp of the guilds!" I hear you shout, spilling your whisky on Meg, the hot-in-that-Naughty-WASPy-way wife of your neighbor) - Medicaid planning by non-lawyers is now the unlicensed practice of law in some states, while the courts are now prohibiting non-lawyer advocates from representing clients in arbitration.

No, hombre, I think lawyers will continue to (rightly) have the monopoly on being paid to be advocates in legal matters for the foreseeable future. Will multi-jurisdictional legal practice become more common? That I'll concede.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

We'll all be protected until long after we need it. And I say that with the deepest sense of depression.

Diversity in culture is no different than diversity in professions. Introducing differently trained people into the mix is the only way to progress. We need new thinking, new blood, and for God's sake, the very last voices who should ever be allowed to hold sway are those who advocate the perpetuation of what Friedman called, rightly, "licensing leveraging schemes."

I'd happily trade the good stuff and drink with the little guys in the dive bars if I knew it brought down our profession. We do a lot of good, but are in too many regards a tremendous impediment.

But more important than that, we are slow, inefficient, and relics. Progress demands a tyranny of tired ideas give way to something better. Diversity, in terms of licensing relaxation, is the fix for us.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

It doesn't regrow to meet 1950-1990s trend. That was an aberration.

Progressive taxation doesn't fix it. See: Math.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

That's why I said "stable"; I think depending on the quintile you look at you'll find either a flat or a slightly increase income over the last 20 years or so. I don't think there is ever a period where there is a drop.

West Virginia, and the parts of Kentucky and Tennessee around it, are a somewhat different case, however; there the demise of the mine workers union has had an enormously negative impact on the area. The mine jobs are, in many ways, worse and fewer than they used to be, and there just aren't replacement jobs.

But, overall, it seems whatever new jobs are replacing old ones aren't driving down incomes (though the benefits and security may not be as good). Are we sure all the "new" "service economy" jobs are poorly paying and menial?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Math does not work the way you think it does. But yes, progressive taxation is only a marginal fix.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Look, Not-Bob, usually you're a pretty acute observer of the human condition and I usually could imagine going all nuclear what-a-fucking-idiot-fool-you-are on you like I do on Sebby (who, let's face it, asks for it), BUT....

What are you, a trump-style MORON? What non-orange person could ever suggest there is a "hot-in-that-Naughty-WASPY-way" category? Naughty Wasps? Is that like when Brooke dated that Black scholarship student at Exeter? Or decided to go slumming in Milan rather than hang out in Cannes with the rest of the family that one time in August? You find that stuff hot?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Sebby, you know I love you like that guy from college who inadvertently cock-blocked me by earnestly describing the exact sequence of drum solos in the Dead's '76 Atlanta show when I was trying to hit on a sophomore Tri-Delt who was in her "shock the parents by maybe fucking a sorta Communist" stage, so I say this with bemused affection, but dude - grab a Boodles and tonic (it's almost Memorial Day) and chill on the porch for a bit. Ponder the deep philosophical question of whether yoga pants are the Dolfin shorts of today. Have another G&T.

And stay away from Meg. Don't fall into that Cheeveresque hell-hole.

And Young Adder - even the algorithms can't persuade Sebby. Grab a mug of fair trade tea, and know that you at least got him to respond substantively. Well done.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Have you never read Updike or Cheever? Or ever seen Caddyshack? Lacey Underall is a prime example.

http://www.coolmoviecaps.com/wp-cont...ack-282474.jpg

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

I'll bet you enjoy a nice cold gin and tonic with a little slice of lime.

I was at the crib, sitting by the fireplace.
 

Things that make you go "hmmmm."

So, Sebby - first shoe to drop? Or just an isolated incident limited to one GOP consultant in Florida?

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Lemon, but close enough. What can I say? I'm just a dumb Mick, sometimes in their world, but not of it.

Re: I was at the crib, sitting by the fireplace.
 

First of many, I'd say.

But I continue to hold to the main reason I think this never gets to Trump:

1. The Russians are smart;
2. No smart person enters into a conspiracy in which someone as dimwitted and unpredictable as Donald Trump is directly involved.

It could be that Putin doesn't care about being eventually caught, and did actually deal directly with Trump. But he's gone a long, long way to deny collusion so far.

I think a few people in the Trump Admin and campaign will be found to have unethically and perhaps illegally colluded.

I also think a lot of these ancillary connections with Russians are found. If I were the Russians, I'd have used numerous channels. For this kind of stuff, why not have a handful of cooks in the kitchen? Increase chance of success.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

With Hendricks or Sapphire, I add nothing. With Tanqueray, I add enough lime to kill the vapors otherwise causing me to imagine I'm sipping a glass of liquefied pine needles.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

I caught NB's drift...

There's a type of disaffected girl for whom "wasp hot" fits.

You can't tell if she's fucking you the way some people engage in "boredom eating," or if she's really into you. But she does it a lot either way, and her parents were never home during high school. She's also kind of sloppy, but not intentionally... more a product of mild depression and apathy.

She's usually a closet alcoholic by junior year of college. Cycles in an out of stints on Prozac in adulthood, racks up a divorce or two, in middle age winds up a real estate agent waiting out an inheritance Dad hasn't had the heart to tell her he pissed away years ago.

Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?
 

I agree that Trump probably didn't directly work with the Russians. And I wouldn't be surprised if knew nothing about it before being briefed after the election. But ...

Nixon was pretty smart. He likely didn't know about the Watergate break-in, but he understood that if it was connected to his campaign, he would - at a bare minimum - be dead politically. A lame duck even before the mid-terms.

But the Watergate thread kept being pulled* by the FBI, which then leaked details to W&B via Mark Felt, who was disgruntled (certainly) at being passed over for chief, as well as disgusted (I believe) by the acts of Mitchell, Haldeman, and the rest of Nixon's fixers.

And then Nixon did something that Trump should have remembered - he tried to pressure the FBI (via the CIA and the AG) into dropping the investigation. That coverup** cost him the presidency and sent his top aides to prison.

If Trump doesn't remember this, I am sure some of his top aides do. Will be interesting*** to see how this all plays out.

*Also the judge overseeing the sentencing of the burglars smelled something and threatened lengthy prison term until he heard what they really knew - which confirmed the connection to CREEP.

**The investigation triggered by the coverup also brought to light a shit-ton of Nixon sins - the ITT bribe to drop an antitrust case, tax evasion, the Ellsberg break-in, etc.

***In the way that a horrifying trainwreck with fatalities is "interesting."

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

that's either "wasp lukewarm" or there is a socio-economic-cultural dynamic providing extra heat...

Re: Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?
 

Different Congress, different supporters. If you can, listen to Rachel Maddow on Stern earlier this week. No idea where it ends as to criminal actions, but there is a belief only congress can take down a sitting President.

Re: Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?
 

I'd be shocked if Trump spoke directly to any Russians. I wouldn't be surprised if he was told they were getting Russian help. Wouldn't have been smart to tell him, but these guys aren't smart.

And maybe that explains why instead of posturing the president as against any shenanigans by taking an investigation seriously, he and everyone else keeps lying.

Re: Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?
 

Good points, Hank - I've heard Maddow and others talk about the differences in the political environment between then and now. It won't happen before 2018 unless the GOP thinks that leaving him in will cost them the House. And it will only happen after 2018 if the House flips and enough Republicans in the Senate are brave enough to vote for removal.

As with Nixon, it would strengthen the impeachment case if he is named as an unindicted conspirator.

Re: Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?
 

Only Congress or the VP and a majority of the cabinet.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

I can't believe anyone drinks both of these. I am Hendricks- I'd stay sober before drinking Sapphire- so different.

Re: Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?
 

some of them will need to be in prison before he could possibly be pulled out. and I think he'll go to appointing kids as the wagons circle.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Sapphire is good with tonic, where Hendricks is wasted. Hendricks in a martini or even straight on the rocks.

Re: Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?
 

Yeah, although a genuine health crisis doesn't seem out of the question. Dude is clearly unwell in some ways, albeit perhaps not sufficiently acute for action.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

I love the Sapphire martini more than some close family. It's sweeeeeet anesthesia. If you get the Vermouth ratio just right, with extra olives, you get the sweet and the sour working against each other -- a perfect drink. Extra cold, too.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Sapphire bottles litter my trash like there's an ethnic cleansing on blue glass... I'd go nuts if they discontinued it.

Re: Those evil-natured robots, they're programmed to destroy us.
 

Once Ty's dream comes true and we are a communist country, I will send you all my Sapphire rations.