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

You say this like it isn't always true.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Let me quote myself:

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Literal LOL.

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

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.

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

Whatever.

TM

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

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.

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

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

Yes, I was thinking larger.

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

Please do. You're wrong.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Whenever possible, put on side one of Led Zeppelin IV.
 

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.

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

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?

Re: Whenever possible, put on side one of Led Zeppelin IV.
 

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.

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

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.

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

That is my guess.

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

Is it, though? Seems like it could, but I'm not sure it actually has.

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

This is not normal, and it's not about the subject of the EO. It's about power. He (Bannon) will use this as a means to undermine the judiciary.

I hope I'm being paranoid, but I don't think I am.

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

If it isn't, it's surely pretty close.

And if dumb immigration policies increase labor costs, I have to imagine whatever daylight exists between the two will be erased damn quickly.

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

I don't know much about Bannon, but that's a radically dark endgame.

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

I don't know, and miniaturization might actually work against automation for assembly/manufacturing.

Your iPhone (or I assume any other electronic device) is assembled by hand at least in part because of the tiny parts that have to be managed.

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

I think you're exactly right, which is why I think SCOTUS would be wise to give a wide berth before getting involved.

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

Yes, but can you image the twitter rage at a denial of Cert? I mean, a court with the audacity to be unwilling to even consider putting a halt to the madness that is our Constitution?

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

Re Bannon, Trump's flip out to this is going to be epic: http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/k...16_630x354.jpg

Fashion Board Schaudenfraud Posing
 

So the local thrift shop's $1 rack is now stuffed to the gills with Ivanka's line of clothing. Apparently all the folks who have bought them are trying to get rid of them. No one will buy them for $1.

We're facing a dire situation here. Come spring, it's likely you'll be able to spot a homeless woman in Boston because she's be wearing Ivanka clothing. We must do something to protect them.