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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Tech and globalization are rendering massive portions of the US workforce obsolete, and will continue to do so at increasing speed.

So it is and so it has always been. Let's smash some looms!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

It's there to learn. Obviously, you have to learn what your choices are, and their impact. We would need to bend over backwards to make sure that taxpayers have an opportunity to learn.

The question is whether the state is going to act in loco parentis for a permanent underclass, which never goes away or advances because to do so puts one out of the safety net and there are no jobs any more which a person without skills can get that will pay a living wage, or if we are going to realize that the state's job is not just to make sure nobody starves or wants for an education or health care, but also to incentivize the people in that safety net to take even an incremental step out. You sound like a hedge fund shareholder or the Queen of the Netherlands: I want my quarterly dividend and I want it now.

We've done nothing to incentivize people to step out of govt assistance. All efforts have been to force them out of it. Speeches about "personal responsibility" and drug testing as a condition of welfare aren't going to magically match an unqualified person to a decent wage job.

But even if you find that magic incentivizing policy, where are the jobs paying living wages for these new workers?

There are simply far more bodies than there are things for bodies to do. And that trend is going to increase. If you doubt me, just look at your phone, and ask yourself, "How many decent paying administrative jobs have been eliminated by the smartphone alone?" Run with that thinking for a bit and see where it takes you. It's not revelatory, of course. We all know this stuff. We see these trends. But I'm not sure we think about it enough. If we did, the need for a negative income tax would be debated in national forums, rather than in odd little chatrooms like this one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

So it is and so it has always been. Let's smash some looms!

I was wondering just how fast you'd offer this dull comment. You're nothing if not consistent (which you probably take as a compliment).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I don't disagree with any of what you are saying, just that you are trying to cram 5 pounds into a 2 pound bag. Institutionalized racism and classicism affect education. of course. They inform the way we live, period. But even if you made the best of all possible education systems, it would still exist in a world of race and class, where color, religion, ethnicity, etc. often have as big an impact on your success in life as any other factor. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands on the education system.

I'm not sure how what you just wrote is related to the discussion we've been having. You want to pay the poor through a negative taxable income system. When I suggest that the problems that exist based (mostly) on housing won't be addressed, and suggest how those issues might be tackled, you plug your ears and start yelling about a nanny state.

The issues are deep and entrenched. I thought we were talking about how to fix all of this shit (or at least start to). The fact that you get pissy when I say your solution doesn't go far enough means you don't really want to talk about it beyond your opinion. Since I don't want to fight about something that is about as likely to happen (given what I said about people having to give shit up in order for anything to happen) as Hank hitting 3 straight jumpers, I decided not to.

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If I came across as aggressive its because I was reading a healthy dose of "well, we can't make it perfect so why bother." That frustrated me, because it's so the way we have been living up to now. We can't fix it all, so we won't try to fix one or two pieces and hope that from that will grow a culture in which, "it's too big, too pervasive" is no longer an acceptable excuse for doing nothing.

Uh...no. I wasn't saying nothing is possible. I was saying there is no point in arguing over a destruction of ghettos and a redistribution of people vs. instituting a tax system in which we outright pay poor people. I'm not going to argue with you about which is better because neither will happen.

But your voice has changed in general. I don't mind angry and aggressive--in fact, I kind of like it (see: Finch). But when it comes from someone who generally isn't (or who didn't used to be), it's strange. And when it comes from a discussion in which I'm saying your solution doesn't go far enough, it's just plain weird.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was wondering just how fast you'd offer this dull comment. You're nothing if not consistent (which you probably take as a compliment).

Maybe this time is different, but don't pretend that you're saying something that hasn't been said ad nauseum back to antiquity and been wrong.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

So it is and so it has always been. Let's smash some looms!

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume eventually tech and globalization will lead to even more jobs down the road... when will that be?

Because -- and you know this -- an element of the argument that new technologies inevitably lead to more jobs includes the recognition that this takes a long time. That initially there is labor displacement.

So, under your own theory, there is what we can all an "interim" period in which there is considerable loss of jobs to impacted sectors. How long is this interim? And what's your solution for the job losses occasioned during it?

I believe a reasonable estimate for when jobs created by tech and globalization eclipse jobs lost from them would be 2035. So, wise Adder - what say you to those savaged in the "interim"? Because neither you, nor any other economist trotting out that argument has ever addressed that issue.

Do we "let them eat cake"? Or do we laughably suggest they be "retrained." Or maybe we run with a negative income tax. What's the consistent thinker's conventional solution for that interim?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maybe this time is different, but don't pretend that you're saying something that hasn't been said ad nauseum back to antiquity and been wrong.

No shit. The obviousness of it is implied. Which I noted (I figured someone, somewhere might have utter shit for brains and need that explanation).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume eventually tech and globalization will lead to even more jobs down the road... when will that be?

I don't know, now? We've got some slack still in the labor supply in prime age people who dropped out of the workforce, but nonetheless, we're currently in a low-unemployment environment.

ETA: And just to put some perspective on that, it looks like prime age labor force participation topped out at 84.6% in January of 1999. In July of this year, it was at 81.2%, or at a higher level than at any point prior to the early '80s. The problem is just not as big as you think it is.

Sure, globalization and catch up growth means we're not going to continue to maintain the lead we've enjoyed in living standards, but result isn't the apocalypse you're predicting.

[Because -- and you know this -- an element of the argument that new technologies inevitably lead to more jobs includes the recognition that this takes a long time. That initially there is labor displacement.

You sound like you're talking to us from the '80s. The manufacturing jobs you're worried about, they are already gone and have been for decades.

ETA: It's not an argument. It's a historical observation.

Do we "let them eat cake"? Or do we laughably suggest they be "retrained." Or maybe we run with a negative income tax. What's the consistent thinker's conventional solution for that interim?

There are lots of policies we could be implementing if we didn't have one party that defines its identity by opposition to government actually doing anything.

The frictions you're talking about just don't play out the way you see it. Instead of masses of useless people without work, you get stagnant median wages and greater income inequality. Those are problems we more or less know how to solve (higher taxes on the rich and greater investment in education, research, training, etc). But again, one party doesn't want to solve them.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No shit. The obviousness of it is implied. Which I noted (I figured someone, somewhere might have utter shit for brains and need that explanation).

Would you like to also address the "it's always been wrong before" part too?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You have a fine sense of irony.

? huh. was that not what you meant? did you mean to insult me?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

? huh. was that not what you meant? did you mean to insult me?

I have one word for you: Rather. Chafing.

Here is some sleazy funk that opens with maybe the worst fake police siren in the history of funk. The Soulfadelics with "The Big Chase." The Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQrrUtZ7-U0

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume eventually tech and globalization will lead to even more jobs down the road... when will that be?

Because -- and you know this -- an element of the argument that new technologies inevitably lead to more jobs includes the recognition that this takes a long time. That initially there is labor displacement.

So, under your own theory, there is what we can all an "interim" period in which there is considerable loss of jobs to impacted sectors. How long is this interim? And what's your solution for the job losses occasioned during it?

I believe a reasonable estimate for when jobs created by tech and globalization eclipse jobs lost from them would be 2035. So, wise Adder - what say you to those savaged in the "interim"? Because neither you, nor any other economist trotting out that argument has ever addressed that issue.

Do we "let them eat cake"? Or do we laughably suggest they be "retrained." Or maybe we run with a negative income tax. What's the consistent thinker's conventional solution for that interim?

How about some sort of safety net, a sort of minimum standard of living that provides a decent existence?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

It is brutal, but yes, a fantastic book. Today's Daily Dose is "Ghetto Funk":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20ZUtYEGU8g

There's a dj sub-genre called Ghetto Funk. My husband sometimes plays it. This is from a Halloween party he did in 2014: https://www.mixcloud.com/graham14/g-funk-train/

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

The State of Georgia (and I'm sure it's not the only one) has an online program for home schooling K-12. And it's free. Are we seeing the coming on an era when schools have been eliminated by online education and the kids whose parents can't afford a computer and broadband will remain illiterate?

That's one way to keep Junior from any corrupting outside influences brought in by Jews, foreigners and blacks.

My sister worked at EPGY, which was an online school developed by Stanford, for 8 years. The school itself goes back at 30 years, and I've known a few people who benefited from it because they blew past their own school's math or science courses.

If done properly, online education can be an awesome supplement to in classroom education. I'm sure that the State of Georgia (as probably my own state) have other motives, but it could be certainly something that helps teach kids.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

When one of my republican (or formerly republican) friends posts something bemoaning the state of their (former) party on FB, I never know whether to just silent slip in a like or actually say something positive. Does it come across as too schadenfreaudish to post an "Attaboy" or "You go girl" in such a situation?

This has become a daily conundrum. Thankfully.*


* said with appreciation and not schadenfreude.