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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

The takeaway here is the Brazile wants to sell books and is smart enough to know how to do that. And that apparently that matters more to her than Tuesday's elections.

I think this is less about selling books and more about inside ball for Bernie '2020. Bernie has now received some warm fuzzy feelings and political points from a black woman who managed a national Presidential campaign and ran the DNC and who has been a leading gay rights activist. Can you imagine a bigger gift for a candidate who screwed the pooch by unnecessarily pissing off African Americans, Women, Gays, and Political Insiders?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who watches Joe Scarborough? Is he going to be able to keep an audience if he keeps departing from GOP orthodoxy?

Liberals like to be able to have a few token rational conservatives to point to.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think this is less about selling books and more about inside ball for Bernie '2020. Bernie has now received some warm fuzzy feelings and political points from a black woman who managed a national Presidential campaign and ran the DNC and who has been a leading gay rights activist. Can you imagine a bigger gift for a candidate who screwed the pooch by unnecessarily pissing off African Americans, Women, Gays, and Political Insiders?

I don't think so, but regardless, that can wait until after tomorrow too.

Frankly, I don't think she can give him much on those fronts, especially given that he's going to screw up on all of them again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Liberals like to be able to have a few token rational conservatives to point to.

Sure, but I'm not sure that's much of a market niche to sell to advertisers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The same is true of most politicians, and most economists seem to shelve what they really think in order to support their side's political talking points.

eta: I still haven't forgiven Obama for his pivot to austerity.

This is 75% of what’s wrong with economic policy. People pick sides and arrange data to support the conclusion they desire. Neoliberal economics has huge downsides we’ve known about forever. But we don’t talk about them until now, when they’re at crisis levels. The economists are creatures of the institutions and schools, which are funded by people and corporations very much opposed to criticism of neoliberal policies under which they profit enormously. The result is herd thinking in the academies, and an exiling of all critics.

(I’ll put aside how this creates bubbles.)

The vexing issue of the moment - our need for increasingly less labor - is still not honestly addressed. It’s either brushed off with the argument, “New tech always creates even more jobs down the road” (never offering that this road is fifty years long), or addressed with candor: “well, it’s going to ugly for a lot of people... but there is no other option.”

I happen to agree with the latter. But it is a defeatist position. And on the bigger issues, like this, our economists might as well be parking lot attendants. All they will offer is some safe, useless bit of dogma that’ll satisfy the corporate interests that ultimately pay their salaries.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is 75% of what’s wrong with economic policy. People pick sides and arrange data to support the conclusion they desire. Neoliberal economics has huge downsides we’ve known about forever. But we don’t talk about them until now, when they’re at crisis levels. The economists are creatures of the institutions and schools, which are funded by people and corporations very much opposed to criticism of neoliberal policies under which they profit enormously. The result is herd thinking in the academies, and an exiling of all critics.

(I’ll put aside how this creates bubbles.)

The vexing issue of the moment - our need for increasingly less labor - is still not honestly addressed. It’s either brushed off with the argument, “New tech always creates even more jobs down the road” (never offering that this road is fifty years long), or addressed with candor: “well, it’s going to ugly for a lot of people... but there is no other option.”

I happen to agree with the latter. But it is a defeatist position. And on the bigger issues, like this, our economists might as well be parking lot attendants. All they will offer is some safe, useless bit of dogma that’ll satisfy the corporate interests that ultimately pay their salaries.

Economists generally might as well be parking-lot attendants, because most politicians generally are not interested in the right answer, but in finding a public reason to do what they wanted to do anyway.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Neoliberal economics has huge downsides we’ve known about forever. But we don’t talk about them until now

That you haven't been talking about them does not mean that no one has.

Also, you're probably wrong about what they are.

The vexing issue of the moment - our need for increasingly less labor - is still not honestly addressed.

That's because it's mostly mythical and/or a non-issue. We simply do not have teeming masses of unused labor.

Might we if automation happens at an ever increasing rate? Maybe, but probably not. Because (1) we don't now and automation isn't new, and (2) people are usually pretty good coming up with other stuff to do.

But I know, you want a neat little story that explains everything and it's not satisfying that a decade from now millions of people will be working in some industry that you and I have not thought up yet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

We simply do not have teeming masses of unused labor.

We are towards the end of a long period of growth, and real wages are not showing it. Unemployment may be low, but it's because people have stopped looking for jobs. The job market is soft, and this should be a good time. When the next recession comes, there'll be pain. You're too quick to dismiss what Sebby says.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is 75% of what’s wrong with economic policy. People pick sides and arrange data to support the conclusion they desire. Neoliberal economics has huge downsides we’ve known about forever. But we don’t talk about them until now, when they’re at crisis levels. The economists are creatures of the institutions and schools, which are funded by people and corporations very much opposed to criticism of neoliberal policies under which they profit enormously. The result is herd thinking in the academies, and an exiling of all critics.

(I’ll put aside how this creates bubbles.)

The vexing issue of the moment - our need for increasingly less labor - is still not honestly addressed. It’s either brushed off with the argument, “New tech always creates even more jobs down the road” (never offering that this road is fifty years long), or addressed with candor: “well, it’s going to ugly for a lot of people... but there is no other option.”

I happen to agree with the latter. But it is a defeatist position. And on the bigger issues, like this, our economists might as well be parking lot attendants. All they will offer is some safe, useless bit of dogma that’ll satisfy the corporate interests that ultimately pay their salaries.

Can you tell me who you view as neoliberal economists?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We are towards the end of a long period of growth

Maybe.

and real wages are not showing it

Arguably, they have recently started to. Regardless, issues with income distribution pre-date and are not explained by the most recent business cycle and existed in prior periods of higher labor force participation.

Unemployment may be low, but it's because people have stopped looking for jobs

That's not really true, but we've been over that before.

You're too quick to dismiss what Sebby says.

I don't see Sebby saying any of what you said. And his techno-babble gloom and doom is repackaged Malthusianism.

Automation has been a factor in how things have changed, but probably less so than the 30+ years of upwardly redistributing government policy. It's funny how when you keep cutting the taxes of the rich and restricting government spending on programs that support the poor, everyone who isn't rich doesn't do as well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Automation has been a factor in how things have changed, but probably less so than the 30+ years of upwardly redistributing government policy. It's funny how when you keep cutting the taxes of the rich and restricting government spending on programs that support the poor, everyone who isn't rich doesn't do as well.

Consider what Sebby says as the techno-libertarian expression angst of real concern that economic growth is benefiting the rich, but not workers. Talking about robots is more fun than spending money on health care.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Can you tell me who you view as neoliberal economists?

Pretty much every mainstream economist. Piketty, Roubini, and Cowen note the downsides of neoliberal economic policies on labor in developed economies. But even they shrug and say, “It’s just how global expansion coupled with extreme tech advances work.”

As I said, my criticism isn’t that economists failed to find a cure. There are only palliative measures to be applied for now. It’s that they failed to get ahead of the problem, and they decried all concerns as Luddite behaviors, or as Adder has, Malthusian.

Economists are quite doctrinaire, binary in thought, and quick to herd and exclude critics. More so than other disciplines, I think, from insecurity that theirs is not a science.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Consider what Sebby says as the techno-libertarian expression angst of real concern that economic growth is benefiting the rich, but not workers. Talking about robots is more fun than spending money on health care.

I favor a universal living wage. Just for the record...

I’m not anti-redistribution. I just want to maximize dollars directly to those who need them, and will spend them in the broader economy, rather than just enriching one sector.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

That you haven't been talking about them does not mean that no one has.

Also, you're probably wrong about what they are.



That's because it's mostly mythical and/or a non-issue. We simply do not have teeming masses of unused labor.

Might we if automation happens at an ever increasing rate? Maybe, but probably not. Because (1) we don't now and automation isn't new, and (2) people are usually pretty good coming up with other stuff to do.

But I know, you want a neat little story that explains everything and it's not satisfying that a decade from now millions of people will be working in some industry that you and I have not thought up yet.

Wage stagnation has remained a persistent problem since 2008.

And labor participation is not explained by boomer retirements. That’s the herd talking. Consider how many retirees don’t have enough to quit, and remain in the workforce.

This isn’t a neat narrative. It’s immensely complex. Far too complex to be shrugged off with a historical analysis of “cycles” from a “science” about as accurate than one’s palm reader.

This tech thing’s been with us for a few decades now. If you were correct about new tech creating more and better jobs over a relevant timeline, new jobs would be outstripped able bodies to fill them 2:1.

ETA: Each recovery since 1990 has been categorized as jobless. Quite accurately, particularly if one looks at jobs paying living wages, rather than low end service jobs.