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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

That first point might be labor's most attractive feature right now.

Yes, I was thinking larger.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Do I have to go out and get the stats comparing the quality of jobs being created post 2008 with those lost before 2008?

Please do. You're wrong.

Or maybe we can also look into job creation versus how many jobs are needed to simply keep up with population growth.

We've already covered that with each of the unemployment measures. What do you think U3, U6, labor force participation, etc. measure?

And wage stag--

There are longer term trend issues away from low skill/high wage jobs, but again, you're opposed or indifferent tot he policy tools that we have to try to address them.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Whatever.

TM

What? You've given up? Don't get me wrong, I understand. I would rather smoke a pound of spice and lie quivering and mute in a gutter, covered in my own feces, while Kellyanne Conway stood over me in a little Ivanka Trump number and lectured me about the root causes of the Bowling Green Massacre than engage in the hyper-repetitive absurdity circle that is arguing with Sebastian. Fortunately, I don't have to do either. It's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose, and here is a new find for me -- the "original rock" version of Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing. It's got a sweet Funkadelic feel to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt2lTQ9p2LE

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Please do. You're wrong.

Journal paywall blocked the article, but this guy quotes most of it: https://mishtalk.com/2016/05/11/jobs...y-is-creating/

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

What? You've given up? Don't get me wrong, I understand. I would rather smoke a pound of spice and lie quivering and mute in a gutter, covered in my own feces, while Kellyanne Conway stood over me in a little Ivanka Trump number and lectured me about the root causes of the Bowling Green Massacre than engage in the hyper-repetitive absurdity circle that is arguing with Sebastian. Fortunately, I don't have to do either. It's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose, and here is a new find for me -- the "original rock" version of Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing. It's got a sweet Funkadelic feel to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt2lTQ9p2LE

When you read Sebby's words, do you hear Kellyanne Conway's voice speaking, or am I the only one?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

In other news, a fascinating new brief and motion has been filed by Les in the 9th Circuit. Finally understand why he does all that travel.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

What? You've given up? Don't get me wrong, I understand. I would rather smoke a pound of spice and lie quivering and mute in a gutter, covered in my own feces, while Kellyanne Conway stood over me in a little Ivanka Trump number and lectured me about the root causes of the Bowling Green Massacre than engage in the hyper-repetitive absurdity circle that is arguing with Sebastian. Fortunately, I don't have to do either. It's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose, and here is a new find for me -- the "original rock" version of Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing. It's got a sweet Funkadelic feel to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt2lTQ9p2LE

Please keep your looking-up-Kellyanne Conway's-skirt-while-covered-in-filth-femdom fantasies to yourself, mister. Maybe RT will set up a separate squicky board for you, perv. We're here to watch Sebby and Adder yell at each other while TM's eyeballs pop out of his head.

[Replaced_Texan]

So does SCOTUS take the case? Seems to me that this one is easy to sit out, since there isn't really any other court in disagreement with the 9th so far.

I suppose they could take an opportunity to reign in executive authority, but is this something a split court wants to do right now?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

So does SCOTUS take the case? Seems to me that this one is easy to sit out, since there isn't really any other court in disagreement with the 9th so far.

I suppose they could take an opportunity to reign in executive authority, but is this something a split court wants to do right now?

1. Dumb guy -- files all his stuff before he has his peeps in place.
2. Smart guy -- appoints his judge to the USSC then executes order he knows will get appealed to the USSC.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There. Is. No. One. Trying. To. As. You. Say, "create as many new jobs in as many new industries as possible."

Well, sure. But as people create new companies you see jobs that need a person. My firm is 60 people now. I never ever wanted to pass 50 (FMLA) but you cannot have a firm w/o clerks, so...

This isn't manufacturing? Ok, but you need bodies (and brains) to do lots of stuff. QC/some assembly ain't automation friendly/sales?

I don't want to hire, I have to hire, why? To make more money.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

So does SCOTUS take the case? Seems to me that this one is easy to sit out, since there isn't really any other court in disagreement with the 9th so far.

I suppose they could take an opportunity to reign in executive authority, but is this something a split court wants to do right now?

I'm not sure SCOTUS gives POTUS even four votes on this one, given the arguments (the EO is unreviewable) and the record (or lack thereof). So maybe SCOTUS's POTUS allies don't vote for cert.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

Please keep your looking-up-Kellyanne Conway's-skirt-while-covered-in-filth-femdom fantasies to yourself, mister. Maybe RT will set up a separate squicky board for you, perv. We're here to watch Sebby and Adder yell at each other while TM's eyeballs pop out of his head.

Re Adder and Sebby, I don't hear yelling - I picture Adder as Al Gore in the 2000 presidential debates (eye-rolling, exasperated sighs, and a tone of patient yet irritated condescension), while Sebby is the confidently incorrect blowhard Mike Damone from Fast Times.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Well, sure. But as people create new companies you see jobs that need a person. My firm is 60 people now. I never ever wanted to pass 50 (FMLA) but you cannot have a firm w/o clerks, so...

This isn't manufacturing? Ok, but you need bodies (and brains) to do lots of stuff. QC/some assembly ain't automation friendly/sales?

I don't want to hire, I have to hire, why? To make more money.

Increasingly, you don't need bodies. And as you say, you only hire because you have to do so. Suppose I told you that you could use an app to do the work of a clerk? You'd buy the app.

You may subscribe to Adder's argument that small to mid sized firms would rather invest in labor for the moment, as it's more flexible and inexpensive than tech in some regards. That's a good point.

Here's another good point. Automation is moving forward at a Moore's Law rate, right? And to the extent Trump makes labor more expensive via anti-globalization, one can expect the pace of advances in automation to accelerate. As automation becomes the rule in more arenas, under natural market dynamics, its cost decreases at a similar speed.

You'll always have to hire some number of bodies as you grow. But the trend line on that is decreasing to stagnant.

But hey, what does Mike Damone know?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Re Adder and Sebby, I don't hear yelling - I picture Adder as Al Gore in the 2000 presidential debates (eye-rolling, exasperated sighs, and a tone of patient yet irritated condescension), while Sebby is the confidently incorrect blowhard Mike Damone from Fast Times.

I'm not going to hold out on your REO tix for this, Brutus. But aren't you drifting into some territory you usually avoid?

And I think you know, over time, I'm probably the one with an inconvenient truth here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

1. Dumb guy -- files all his stuff before he has his peeps in place.
2. Smart guy -- appoints his judge to the USSC then executes order he knows will get appealed to the USSC.

3. Smart guy (2) -- parrots exact language of Obama's 2011 and 2012 orders on the subject, uses that cover to get those in place, then incrementally increases the scope over time, with quiet, near clandestine rollouts.

I think Trump wants the fight. He's going to define himself by being at war with everything around him. The media told him he had to expand his base to win. He proved he could do it by instead galvanizing what he had. He thinks he can apply that to governance. I think the demographics work against him, and he's going to get hammered in 2020.