I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The aim in new industries is to create as much profit as possible by utilizing the cost savings provided by tech. The aim in old industries is to mine out profits by replacing labor with tech.

You say this like it isn't always true.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You need to retire these words, set forth in this order, from your vocabulary. You've yet to make a point that isn't embarrassingly obvious.

This has always been the goal.

Bullshit. There are entire industries which we should be leading, which we aren't because Republicans refuse to make the necessary investment.

You realize that this is the exact same thought, don't you? And, again, this has always been the goal.

You sound dumber when you say simplistic shit like it's some sort of revelation.

Your ability to say stupid shit is without equal. I'm tired of it, so go play with Adder.

TM

You said something so stupid I had to reply simplistically. I know you're not dumb, but that shit about going out and "creating jobs" is really fucking stupid. Which you acknowledge in the rest of your reply, where you note, the last thing any business ever wants to do is create jobs.

You talk a lot and bluster a good bit and write about how everyone agrees with you. But understand -- they only do so because: (a) they're fellow travelers; (b) this place is kind of an echo chamber; and, (c) you become insufferable when challenged.

Please note, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks of me. Seriously. Fucks given about what a board of lawyers thinks? Truly, zero. I am interested in seeing where the argument goes. So you can dispense with the personal attacks. It's wasted ink.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You say this like it isn't always true.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. But I was compelled to reply in kind. The point I was addressing was... retarded.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've repeated what you've stated.

No, you haven't. Which, again, makes me think you're not too bright.

Do we need to have the discussion about the quality of the jobs created right now, wage stagnation, etc. again?

Perhaps. That would actually be a discussion worth having as those are the challenges we actually face, not your "noboby's ever going to work again" fever dreams.

This right here is why your worst imagining are wrong, as I've said repeatedly. Technology frees up labor to do other things. It will do other things, some of which will have not been sufficiently valuable to employ labor when it was more scarce. That means falling standards of living for some of those displaced, holding all else constant.

But all else isn't constant, because if automation is actually so much cheaper, we should also be seeing rapidly falling prices for manufactured goods.

Which is to say that these longer term predictions are really hard and we should instead stick to short and medium term investments instead of making huge assumptions about the longer term economy.

No. I think unemployment is a completely useless metric.

Let me quote myself:

Meanwhile, you think a couple of million people out of the labor force is the be all and end all of all politics.

Again, you understand that "unemployment" (by which you presumably mean the unemployment rate) is different from labor force participation, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

the last thing any business ever wants to do is create jobs.

You've met like zero actual business people, haven't you?

Because the ones I've met want to make money and are perfectly happy to create jobs if it makes them money. Plenty of them are proud of providing good jobs for their employees (hi, Hank!).

Huge swaths of the American economy could have been automated with existing technology years ago, but haven't. Have you asked youself why? Not all of the answers are eliminated as tech gets cheaper.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Again, you understand that "unemployment" (by which you presumably mean the unemployment rate) is different from labor force participation, right?

Right. My fuckup there. I was focusing on making the point that a return to historical norms, which I assumed was based on U3, was inaccurate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was focusing on making the point that a return to historical norms, which I assumed was based on U3, was inaccurate.

As we've also discussed before, I've not seen a measure on which we haven't returned to historical norms, or at least very close to it. U3, U6, prime age labor force participation.

Actually, as I list them, maybe that's not true. Overall labor force participation may not be quite "normal" due to retiring boomers.

We're not back to housing-boom levels of employment non the non-U3 measures, but we're not that far off and generally comparable to the mid-1990s.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You've met like zero actual business people, haven't you?

Ever have so many arrows in the quiver, you don't know which to use?

Because the ones I've met want to make money and are perfectly happy to create jobs if it makes them money. Plenty of them are proud of providing good jobs for their employees (hi, Hank!).

"If it makes them money" is the operative phrase there. If people can make even more money by doing things without labor, or by eliminating labor, however, which is the "Vicious Cycle" we're in, that does not work.

Hank is a modern Henry Ford. I've always said that myself.

Huge swaths of the American economy could have been automated with existing technology years ago, but haven't. Have you asked youself why?

Yes. I can't be certain, but I think a bit of it accrues from sclerotic corporate environments and labor's own efforts at job protection.

Not all of the answers are eliminated as tech gets cheaper.

Reich's "Vicious Cycle" eventually ends when no one's able to buy the products made so cheaply. While that theory is generally convincing, consider this:

The products we desire today as a result of tech are increasingly cheaper, and easier to make. Fewer tactile "things." More apps, MP3s, streaming entertainment. This stuff is so inexpensive, much more labor can be eliminated before the manufacturers of these products run out of customers. Henry Ford's theory that he needed to pay workers well enough to buy his cars doesn't translate to a world where the things sold are Netflix subscriptions, Spotify, or an app that lets you splitscreen your Instagram photos. Reich's "Vicious Cycle" can run a lot longer than he thinks.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You said something so stupid I had to reply simplistically. I know you're not dumb, but that shit about going out and "creating jobs" is really fucking stupid. Which you acknowledge in the rest of your reply, where you note, the last thing any business ever wants to do is create jobs.

I cannot help it if you're so fucking blinded by your love of self and your unexplainable obsession with the eventual obsoletion of the jobs we can easily see will be lost. But you need to listen really fucking closely: We are not there yet. And there will surely be jobs created we can't currently forsee. And jobs will be created in the meantime. The fact that you think we shouldn't seize those opportunities because you're convinced there will soon be no jobs because that's the goal of business is completely fucking ridiculous.

Business wants to do away with labor costs. Yes, shitbird. But the time when all jobs are gone is not now. I'm sick of you acting like we shouldn't attempt to support industries that do create jobs because of the inevitability of future generations doing away with any type of labor at all. You sound like a dim clown. Shut up with this shit already.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You talk a lot and bluster a good bit and write about how everyone agrees with you.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing I say depends on people agreeing with me. And I sure as hell don't talk about all the people who agree with me.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But understand -- they only do so because: (a) they're fellow travelers; (b) this place is kind of an echo chamber; and, (c) you become insufferable when challenged.

Oh stop with the whining. You're a big boy. When you say stupid shit, smart people disagree with you. And you say the most stupid shit since that idiot secretary left.

And I become insufferable not when I'm challenged. I become insufferable when faced with bullshit. And you're always full of shit.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Please note, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks of me. Seriously. Fucks given about what a board of lawyers thinks? Truly, zero.

Well, that's a relief. I've spent so much time worrying.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I am interested in seeing where the argument goes. So you can dispense with the personal attacks. It's wasted ink.

You're not interested in where the argument goes, because no matter what people say, you repeat the same tired argument.

Also, the personal attacks aren't wasted ink for me. I enjoy them immensely.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I cannot help it if you're so fucking blinded by your love of self and your unexplainable obsession with the eventual obsoletion of the jobs we can easily see will be lost. But you need to listen really fucking closely: We are not there yet. And there will surely be jobs created we can't currently forsee. And jobs will be created in the meantime. The fact that you think we shouldn't seize those opportunities because you're convinced there will soon be no jobs because that's the goal of business is completely fucking ridiculous.

I never said we shouldn't seize any such opportunities. I said the market conditions (read, not politics) don't favor job creation.

Business wants to do away with labor costs. Yes, shitbird.

Okay. You're not brain damaged.

But the time when all jobs are gone is not now. I'm sick of you acting like we shouldn't attempt to support industries that do create jobs because of the inevitability of future generations doing away with any type of labor at all. You sound like a dim clown. Shut up with this shit already.

See my first point.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing I say depends on people agreeing with me. And I sure as hell don't talk about all the people who agree with me.

You do it incessantly. Your favorite line is, "everyone here agrees with me that you're full of shit."

Oh stop with the whining. You're a big boy. When you say stupid shit, smart people disagree with you. And you say the most stupid shit since that idiot secretary left.

Please. You're the biggest blowhard on the board. I'm a contrarian and will argue crazy shit to see if I can pull it off. You, I believe, actually think you're smarter than a lot of people. I mean, you are smart. But you're also a serious know it all who knows maybe 2/3 of what he thinks he does, and flies off the handle like a child when pressed.

And I become insufferable not when I'm challenged. I become insufferable when faced with bullshit. And you're always full of shit.

This is tedious.

You're not interested in where the argument goes, because no matter what people say, you repeat the same tired argument.

Untrue. Notice the difference between our exchange and the one I had with Adder? There's a fuckload of insult between he and I, but there are spots of agreement. Also, I'll argue with Ty like crazy, but acknowledge when he's got a better point. I don't think in the years I've been here you've ever admitted being wrong about anything unless cornered so brutally you had no option. I'll admit, I have the same issue when discussing something with you. Perhaps we're "asshole soulmates."

Also, the personal attacks aren't wasted ink for me. I enjoy them immensely.

It's boring. Writing what I did above regarding our personalities was boring. It's like a giant, "Is to" vs. "Is not."

ETA: Actually, I was a bit unfair there. We have had useful back and forths on race issues. You have actually impacted my thinking in that area. You'll snicker, no doubt, but it's true. Take a compliment there.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes. I can't be certain, but I think a bit of it accrues from sclerotic corporate environments and labor's own efforts at job protection.

Yeah, and I think it has a lot to do with the cost of capital and the general undesirability of tying up money in sunk fixed costs rather than having the relative flexibility of labor, among other things.

But we're also both apparently thinking of different scale businesses. I'm thinking of middle to small businesses, where I think the bulk of jobs are (haven't checked the data on that one), and it sounds like you're thinking of larger businesses.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Also, the personal attacks aren't wasted ink for me. I enjoy them immensely.

Literal LOL.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I said the market conditions (read, not politics) don't favor job creation.

Which is why we've been adding, on average, about 170,000* new jobs a month for the better part of a decade.

*This number is from a few months ago and I think the subsequent months have been better still, so this average might be too low.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I never said we shouldn't seize any such opportunities. I said the market conditions (read, not politics) don't favor job creation.

Okay. You're not brain damaged.

See my first point.

You do it incessantly. Your favorite line is, "everyone here agrees with me that you're full of shit."

Please. You're the biggest blowhard on the board. I'm a contrarian and will argue crazy shit to see if I can pull it off. You, I believe, actually think you're smarter than a lot of people. I mean, you are smart. But you're also a serious know it all who knows maybe 2/3 of what he thinks he does, and flies off the handle like a child when pressed.

This is tedious.

Untrue. Notice the difference between our exchange and the one I had with Adder? There's a fuckload of insult between he and I, but there are spots of agreement. Also, I'll argue with Ty like crazy, but acknowledge when he's got a better point. I don't think in the years I've been here you've ever admitted being wrong about anything unless cornered so brutally you had no option. I'll admit, I have the same issue when discussing something with you. Perhaps we're "asshole soulmates."

It's boring. Writing what I did above regarding our personalities was boring. It's like a giant, "Is to" vs. "Is not."

ETA: Actually, I was a bit unfair there. We have had useful back and forths on race issues. You have actually impacted my thinking in that area. You'll snicker, no doubt, but it's true. Take a compliment there.

Whatever.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which is why we've been adding, on average, about 170,000* new jobs a month for the better part of a decade.

*This number is from a few months ago and I think the subsequent months have been better still, so this average might be too low.

Man, you're tough. "Good" job creation.

Do I have to go out and get the stats comparing the quality of jobs being created post 2008 with those lost before 2008? Or maybe we can also look into job creation versus how many jobs are needed to simply keep up with population growth. And wage stag-- Fuck it. Really? Really? Come on.