dagblog - Comments for "Trade Policy Reality Check - neither Scrooge nor Sucker"

Yes, there is always the

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 18:02:13 +0000

In reply to All good to think about but

Yes, there is always the problem of "what will slackers do?" and people that don't want to and can't learn skills.

This isn't quite my angle. It seems to me that the industrial revolution created more jobs than it destroyed, and a good number of them could be done with the basic skills acquired during the previous period. So, for example, a farm kid was basically equipped with the manual and mechanical dexterity and know-how to work in a factory with just a bit of training. And while the buggy makers and buggy whip makers were put out of business, Detroit assembly lines and their attendant supplier industries created many more jobs than were lost.

But the whole point of the IT revolution is to reduce the number of people required for various tasks and equip those fewer people with abilities that far outstrip the combined abilities of the people replaced. So one person replaces 10 and does the same tasks AND more sophisticated tasks than the 10. I can't remember the name of the virtual reality company Zuckerman bought, but he paid something like $2 billion. All of a sudden--and I'm making this number up, but it isn't far off--a company with ten people, including the owner, was worth $2 billion. The capital or profit producing leverage of each of those ten people was phenomenal.

Now, it's possible that, ultimately, the IT revolution WILL create as many and even many more jobs than it replaces, but thus far, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. So what are those 10 people supposed to do to earn a living? They aren't slackers; they want to work, and they need to work. And it's not even as if getting trained for higher-level work is necessarily the answer if many fewer higher-level workers are needed than were needed for more basic tasks.

In a way, this could be great, as long as the 10 people are supported somehow, perhaps with a mandatory minimum income as a start. And the futurist image, a la the Jetsons, was that robots would take over so many of the tasks that used to occupy us, we'd be free to do what we wanted. No one envisioned that the robots would take all the jobs, and we'd still be left trying to figure out how to make a good living. Labor-saving devices have always been sold as "time savers" that would give us more time to do the things we really wanted to do, e.g., take long road trips, fish, play catch with Bobbie, and so on.

But unless the average person has some claim on the massive profits generated by the robots--say, by owning capital, which could be robots or dividend-paying stocks--he will lose his job, but still need to make a living. Otherwise, he'll end up...doing what, I don't know. I was going to say "pushing a broom," but we already have the Zoomba. So this strikes me as the problem upon us, or coming soon.

Then again, the new technology could create gillions of brand new types of jobs, and my worry is ill-founded. I don't know whether my "vision" here is based on reality or off-base because I don't know enough.

I think it was Dick trying to

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:37:14 +0000

In reply to Damn, who added the gimmick

I think it was Dick trying to spell "jiminy cricket" with that PC that's always giving him fits, but cain't be sure.

Yes, visit western China, aka

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:33:15 +0000

In reply to PP,

Yes, visit western China, aka Xinjiang, aka Eastern Turkestan to see the worst of these trends all together. Regions butting up against Burma also bad, don't even think about Tibet.

Damn, who added the gimmick

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:57:09 +0000

In reply to PS Peter should get line-of

Damn, who added the gimmick infringement clause?

PS Peter should get line-of

Michael Maiello — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:57:00 +0000

In reply to AA, I suggest that the future

PS Peter should get line-of-the-day for "They always left that part out of the Jetsons."

TOS for gimmick infringement against Richard Day.

AA, I suggest that the future

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:39:03 +0000

In reply to All good to think about but

AA, I suggest that the future is here--people just don't realize it yet. Automation already plays a big role in the decline of manufacturing jobs, and the value of capital is surging relative to the value of labor, re: Picketty. The whole country feels the effects of these changes--indeed the whole western world--but some places feel it more acutely, and too few understand why it's happening.

So it really is a question about what to do in the next few years as wages continue to stagnate and inequality continues to grow. I'm not a big fan of the capitalists-subsidize-income-for-the-masses model. It doesn't strike me a politically stable or socially harmonious solution.

PS Peter should get line-of-the-day for "They always left that part out of the Jetsons."

PP,

artappraiser — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:12:36 +0000

In reply to Trade Policy Reality Check - neither Scrooge nor Sucker

PP,

Interesting that China seems to have come to the point of basically having the same urban vs. rural problem that we have as far as rising income equality is concerned Also interesting that reversal of one child policy is seen as a solution by some as to some of what ails them. And another point: If I recall past reading correctly, antagonism between ethnic groups is also part of the equation when one gets into the rural problem...

There will be black markets

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:53:02 +0000

In reply to None of this will be solved

There will be black markets if you chose not to participate and you will be a loser nation if you don't.

Black markets exist where demand can be met profitably by some party that can sneak their product past the regulators and the tax man. Most durable goods manufactured overseas can be easily interdicted.

None of this will be solved

artappraiser — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:43:02 +0000

In reply to There's so much to respond to

None of this will be solved by nations being isolationist on trade. Rather, it's the opposite, you need international agreements on what to do.You do not like the agreements that have been made in the recent past. Fine. Go at it, promote different international agreements. But tariffs and protectionism are not an answer. That's over. We have the internet. There will be black markets if you chose not to participate and you will be a loser nation if you don't. It's really that simple: be there or be square.

P.S. I think it's good to

artappraiser — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:58:50 +0000

In reply to All good to think about but

P.S. I think it's good to keep this historic perspective when ruminating, such as: why have the jobs Henry Ford created out of thin air a little more than 100 years ago become so sacrosanct and crucial to civilization? Well paid assembly line jobs were a half century blip and were doled out to a lucky few in the scheme of things. Planned economies like the Soviet Union tried to do it fairly and failed.

Meanwhile, many plumbers and their assistants who had jobs before the assembly line was invented will still have jobs. They will surely be needed to install the pipes robots make until all the housing stock that exists now disappears and is replaced with something that inexpensive A.I. is able to repair.

Craftsmanship is never going to go away. The whole argument about how not everyone can be a precious artist argument on this thread I find to be silly hyperbole. Some people will always like to work with their hands and some other people will always appreciate what they do with their hands and want to trade value for it.