Re: For Adder
 

Not sure it says that.

Re: For Adder
 

Dude, my friends at Bain know better than to rely on analysis by Bain. What are you doing?

I'm impressed....
 

I logged in and expected to see a circle-jerk over either (i) the Children of the Damned, child zombie, gun-grab marches or (ii) "Stormy" Clifford in clothes.

Honestly surprised to see the Bolton appointment as the current outrage on here. I sincerely agree that it's a legit discussion - Trump specifically ran against the Neo-Cons, and Bolton is THE Neo-Con, Exhibit B-2. As someone in the hypothetical middle of their foreign approach, the move surprises me. Has much ado with the change in the Saudis and prevailing winds. We'll see where this goes.

SlaveNo(NRA)More

Re: I'm impressed....
 

I think everyone's exhausted with marches and Trump sex scandals. How do you keep up with the stuff? Every week somebody's marching for something, and every three days somebody's got a story about who Trump was fucking.

Bolton, OTOH, is a possible existential threat. I don't think he'll lead us into a war, as there's no valid basis to attack Iran, and the American people will not support it. But he's certainly going to try, with every fiber of his being. And Trump will look back at ratings and see how war time Presidents enjoy bumps in approval.

Re: For Adder
 

Broken clocks being right twice a day...

Re: For Adder
 

It says the following:

1. New jobs will inevitably emerge, following the old rule;
2. However, there will be a prolonged interim period in which we'll see enormous unemployment and possible radical govt interventions;
3. This will be a very bleak period, particularly for labor replaceable via outsourcing and automation;
4. It is possible things may work out differently, as with any prediction, but this one is given with a fair amount of confidence given the obvious demographic data and economic trends.

You could say, yes, it predicts that Adder will be right at some point in the more distant future. That point, however, appears to fall into Keynes' "long run" where "we'll all be dead." The study supports my theory that you, me, everyone here, will get to live the majority of the rest of our lives through what I'd call "the interim."

I don't plan on seeing 2060.

Re: For Adder
 

I thought the big question is, where will things be on net given that automation will eliminate some jobs and create others? When I looked at the summary, I didn't see that issue addressed, and more generally I didn't see a whole lot of discussion of the job creation side. What did I miss?

Re: For Adder
 

Well I definitely feel vindicated then.

The Kids, guns and Tump's dick
 

What's to say about them? The kids are awesome and at this point look like they will make some difference. Not enough, because the right wing is now a NRA death cult, but some.

As for Stormy, it's hard not to enjoy her torturing 45 so badly that he can't even tweet about it. It's not going to matter, because the right wing is now a pro-Trump cult of personality, but whatever.

Re: I'm impressed....
 

Sebby, you ought to get out more. Beautiful day on the common Saturday, listening to a bunch of kids give us hope.

Our Country's biggest problem isn't either Bolton or guns, it's the morons. Like third party voters. They deserve Bolton.

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

I think it's Thief of Time? But I'm really looking forward to the Good Omens mini-series.

Re: For Adder
 

"The next phase of automation has begun, and it will accelerate in the years ahead. Faced with a rising scarcity of labor, companies and investors are likely to draw increasingly on automation technologies, which, in turn, would boost productivity. But to grow, economies need demand to match rising output. Our analysis shows automation is likely to push output potential far ahead of demand potential. The rapid spread of automation may eliminate as many as 20% to 25% of current jobs—equivalent to 40 million displaced workers—and depress wage growth for many more workers.

The benefits of automation will likely flow to about 20% of workers—primarily highly compensated, highly skilled workers—as well as to the owners of capital. The growing scarcity of highly skilled workers may push their incomes even higher relative to lesser-skilled workers. As a result, automation has the potential to significantly increase income inequality and, by extension, wealth inequality.

. . .

"Optimists argue that the clear pattern of history is that creating more value with fewer resources has led to rising material wealth and prosperity for centuries. We see no reason to believe that this time will be different—eventually. But the time horizon for our analysis stretches only into the early 2030s, about 15 to 20 years from now. Relieving the imbalances causing the stagnation in that time period means changing the pattern of income distribution somehow, shifting income toward those inclined to spend rather than save. Many options exist, and different countries will choose different paths. But historically, governments confronted with serious economic imbalances often have opted for a more active role in reshaping market-based outcomes.

. . .

"Our analysis concludes that the coming phase of automation could eventually eliminate up to 50% of all current jobs.

. . .

"By 2030, employers will need 20% to 25% fewer workers, equivalent to 30 million to 40 million jobs in the US (see Figure 22). Automation technologies will affect each industry and occupation differently. In some cases, lower costs resulting from automation combined with high demand for goods or services may add back jobs in a given industry. Many sectors will be able to lower operating costs by 10% or more, including some of the largest service sector employers such as retail trade and food service (see Figures 23, 24 and 25). At lower prices, we will see increased demand for some products, which will offset some displacement. Without it, the total reduction in employment would rise to nearly 30% of existing workers, or almost 50 million workers in the US. To put these numbers in context, during the Great Recession, US employment fell rapidly from its peak in January 2008 to its trough in February 2010 by nearly 9 million jobs, or 6.3% of total employment.
. . .

"Finally, our analysis does not take into account additional third-order effects such as the introduction of new job categories. Social media marketing manager, for example, was hardly a job category 10 years ago; today it is among the fastest-growing fields. Automation will certainly create some new job categories—robot repair technician comes to mind—that will grow rapidly. However, given the magnitude of disruption in our base-case scenario, we do not believe new job categories will temper the degree of labor force disruption in the 2020s.
. . .

"Alternatively, we may have underestimated the flexibility and fluidity of labor markets around the world to adjust to a stepped-up pace of transformation, enabling societies and economies to arrive quickly at a more prosperous balance of higher productivity and employment enabled by a smooth adaptation to incredible new labor-saving tools. This outcome echoes the more bullish technology-as-solution viewpoints with which we largely agree—but only over a much longer time horizon, past the end of the horizon discussed in this report. The balance of historical experience, including experience watching recent adjustments to far more modest market disruptions than contemplated here, such as the recent global financial crisis and recovery, suggests that labor market adaptations are sluggish and will be made even more sluggish by an aging demographic profile.

Potentially the most controversial element of our base-case scenario is the expectation that the government will assume a larger role in the marketplace. The opposite reaction might occur—namely, yet another retreat of government from the marketplace—but that scenario implies accepting the possibility that the demand constraint to growth due to income inequality becomes a near-permanent fixture and an irreconcilable problem. Unfortunately, there is no data set to rely on when analyzing the possible outcomes beyond the pattern of history. In our judgment, the weight of the data suggests that governments are likely to play a more active role addressing market imbalances.

Conclusion

The coming transformation will test leadership teams profoundly. Automation will reshape national economies, throw labor markets into turmoil and change the rules of the game in many industries. Aging populations will strain social systems as never before. But the 2020s will be a period of growth and innovation, too. Eventually, beyond the time horizon of this report, the global economy will recover from the temporary imbalances created by demographics, automation and inequality. As the labor force develops new skills, productivity gains will benefit a broader segment of the population, and new industries will flourish."

Re: I'm impressed....
 

The only thing that is likely to create any real change in this country is marginalization of the two parties in charge. It has to start somewhere.

You know politics. And you know, these parties ultimately serve the 20% of us doing well. They don't give a fuck about truly improving the lives of the rest. They'll offer them aid, or programs, or whatever else they can to manage them. But they aren't interested in creating economic growth among these people because that would cost them and their benefactors.

Sure, Democrats are better. But neither party has any solutions. In a moment where we might allow tech to help us achieve Keynes' "Leisure Society," we've instead developed a country where the top - both right and left - siphons all the $$$$ upward and leaves the rest to toil like serfs.

Whether it's via neoliberal policies or nationalist policies, the country's bifurcating. My household depends on US workers and small to mid sized businesses having cash to spend on services. I'm watching two parties with no clue allowing global economic trends to hollow out that sector. So in a sense, I was voting my book.

I favor a universal income fix. And you might say the Dems are more likely than the GOP to implement such a thing. But I don't believe that. I don't think either one of them will do it. The only reason it's even discussed now is because a Socialist, Sanders, brought ideas of that ilk out of the sphere of deviancy to which they'd been wrongly relegated.

Re: For Adder
 

No question that automation will eliminate jobs. I don't understand the second bolded paragraph. If their analysis does not take into account the creation of new jobs, then it doesn't, and thus doesn't speak to the relevant magnitude of the countervailing effects. But then in the next sentence, they say they don't "believe" the magnitude of job creation will be enough to offset job loss. Well, which is it? It sounds like they didn't do any work on the question.

My belief: Change is hard and disruption is disruptive, and predictions are hard, especially about the future.

Re: I'm impressed....
 

Tax gun sales enough to make state colleges and universities free.