[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-22, 07:52, said:

Of all the gin joints in all the cities in all the world, he had to walk into mine...

Was thinking more of Meknes...

[PassedOut]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-21, 07:18, said:

So what to do? Bring back manufacturing and impose tariffs to make it worthwhile to buy domestic?

Manufacturing output in the US is at an all-time high, and has gone up 30% over the last 6 years. Because of automation, though, manufacturing employment has only gone up 6% over that period (744,000 new manufacturing jobs). Imposing tariffs is a two-way street, and starting a trade war is not smart policy for a lot of reasons.

kenrexford, on 2016-August-21, 12:21, said:

Would not a tax break for manufacturing jobs be a more effective subsidy? I think you end up cutting out the middleman.

Manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979, and output today is much higher now with far fewer jobs. That's because US manufacturing is getting more and more efficient, and the workers are getting more and more skilled. It seems to me that your scheme for subsidizing manufacturing jobs would create a disincentive for improving efficiency. Efficient manufacturers don't need more subsidies. It would work better to use the money for infrastructure improvements, where a good amount of human labor is still required.

[shyams]

PassedOut, on 2016-August-22, 08:47, said:

Manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979, and output today is much higher now with far fewer jobs. That's because US manufacturing is getting more and more efficient, and the workers are getting more and more skilled. It seems to me that your scheme for subsidizing manufacturing jobs would create a disincentive for improving efficiency. Efficient manufacturers don't need more subsidies. It would work better to use the money for infrastructure improvements, where a good amount of human labor is still required.

It may be possible for the US Govt to create new industries, instead!

For example, a feature of many advanced economies (incl. the US) is that we scrap/waste most of our items even though they have potential "economic value" left in them. It is possible for the Federal or State Govts to create markets/subsidies for reuse or recycling. Once the ball is rolling and industries are established around such processes, the subsidies themselves become secondary.

If you don't believe me, look at the soda cans recycling systems in the US of A. I believe in the past if you recycled your empty soda can, the supermarket would refund you a nickel (not sure if this still exists). Due to this, many of your soda cans were historically recycled and continue to do so even today. My cursory google search led me to reports showing that over 2/3rd of all aluminum cans are recycled in the US. In contrast, the recycling rate in the UK is much lower (probably 15%-20%).

And every such "new" industry has huge potential to create jobs!

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2016-August-22, 07:59, said:

Was thinking more of Meknes...

My present wife taught at the American School in Rabat in 1970 and 1971. She loved Morocco.

[PassedOut]

shyams, on 2016-August-22, 12:59, said:

It may be possible for the US Govt to create new industries, instead!

For example, a feature of many advanced economies (incl. the US) is that we scrap/waste most of our items even though they have potential "economic value" left in them. It is possible for the Federal or State Govts to create markets/subsidies for reuse or recycling. Once the ball is rolling and industries are established around such processes, the subsidies themselves become secondary.

If you don't believe me, look at the soda cans recycling systems in the US of A. I believe in the past if you recycled your empty soda can, the supermarket would refund you a nickel (not sure if this still exists). Due to this, many of your soda cans were historically recycled and continue to do so even today. My cursory google search led me to reports showing that over 2/3rd of all aluminum cans are recycled in the US. In contrast, the recycling rate in the UK is much lower (probably 15%-20%).

And every such "new" industry has huge potential to create jobs!

There certainly is the possibility of creating new industries! In fact, the US does subsidize the development of new industries, particularly in the green energy sector, and these new industries do create new jobs. Most of the new industries start up as efficiently as they can, though, and don't provide many jobs for unskilled workers.

One reason that conservatives advocate a carbon tax to help offset the damage caused by burning carbon-based fuels is that this approach creates more profit opportunities for new industries and permits the market to sort things out. That avoids the need for government to choose the winners. But that still leaves the problem of how to provide a tolerable life for unskilled workers and their kids.

[kenberg]

I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to see what sense I could make of it, if any. So far, about all I can say in that I am thinking about it. Here is where I started:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/

One of the tables is at
http://www.bls.gov/e...p_table_303.htm

It tells me that my male cohorts aged 75-79 have increased our participation in the labor force from 9.8% in 1994 to12.4% in 2004 and further to 14.5% in 2014. The projected increase is to 17.3% in 2024. This is, as I understand it, the percentage of us who are in the labor force. Whatever that means. Eg, I taught a couple of classes last fall when a colleague died. Did this qualify as "being in the labor force"?

The rise is a mystery to me. Since it is a percentage, the fact that older people are a larger percentage of the population is not an explanation, although it could have something to do with it. We are, I think, healthier than people of out age were twenty years ago so maybe that's it.

Robert Samuelson had another, this most be at least the thirtieth, column on why we of a certain age are destroying the economy or destroying the world or destroying something. I am trying to age backward like Merlin, but so far no dice.

Anyway, since I am not currently working, I might put some thought into just what to make of all the data. A reasonable sample question is to explain the increase cited above. If I can't do that, I have little faith in any more complex analysis.

[mike777]

Having a few people in govt decide which industries to "create" and which not to "create is a terrible idea. I keep going back to the internet. What we call the internet today was not invented by a few people. This is a myth. OUr internet was and is being created by millions of decisions by millions of individuals. NOt the govt. The role govt can play is in funding basic research in as broad a fashion, not picking, as possible. It can play a role in having a court and police system to enforce private property rights. It can play role in infrastructure such as water, sewer, schools, etc.

What people are talking about is crony capitalism at its worst. ONe example is the current debate over driverless cars. Should the govt step in with various safety rules, regulation rules and if so at what point in the innovation process. The problem is regulations can hamper innovation. Should a few people in Washington decide which type of driverless cars to send a govt subsidy or let the consumer pick and choose with their wallet.
---------------------------------

If the choice becomes having a few guys and gals in Washington decide which industries to create or send a check in the mail or to my bank for me to spend as I choice, I vote for the check.

[mike777]

I go back to the theme I first discussed, the future is people not working and what will they do with their lives.

I mean even today only roughly 125 million people work 35+ hours a week out of roughly 330 million. The rest of us either work part time or not at all outside of the home. Look in our kitchens and laundry rooms, machines, machines with tiny computers, robots today do most of the work. Robots in the near future may take over much of our driving, taxis, trucking, etc.

One idea that Bernie had and Hillary picks up a bit is too send most of us, of all ages, back to campus. Go back to campus not only to take a class or two but the whole "campus" experience.

[shyams]

mike777, on 2016-August-22, 17:05, said:

I go back to the theme I first discussed, the future is people not working and what will they do with their lives.

I mean even today only roughly 125 million people work 35+ hours a week out of roughly 330 million. The rest of us either work part time or not at all outside of the home.

In 1975, the US population was 215m and the numbers employed was 78m. If you take percentages, the past workforce ratios were lower than the present.

I'm not disputing your notion that the future could be people not working. However, I am not sure how the current employed figures buttress your theory about the future of the workforce in any manner.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2016-August-22, 17:05, said:

I go back to the theme I first discussed, the future is people not working and what will they do with their lives.

" the future is people not working and what will that do to our lives?"

fyp

[Al_U_Card]

shyams, on 2016-August-22, 17:20, said:

In 1975, the US population was 215m and the numbers employed was 78m. If you take percentages, the past workforce ratios were lower than the present.

I'm not disputing your notion that the future could be people not working. However, I am not sure how the current employed figures buttress your theory about the future of the workforce in any manner.

To maintain balance (ie the economy does NOT crash, for the time being...) there must be more people working for less to counter fewer people making much more. Money movement is the economy, after all.

[shyams]

mike777, on 2016-August-22, 17:02, said:

Having a few people in govt decide which industries to "create" and which not to "create is a terrible idea. I keep going back to the internet. What we call the internet today was not invented by a few people. This is a myth. OUr internet was and is being created by millions of decisions by millions of individuals. NOt the govt. The role govt can play is in funding basic research in as broad a fashion, not picking, as possible. It can play a role in having a court and police system to enforce private property rights. It can play role in infrastructure such as water, sewer, schools, etc.

What people are talking about is crony capitalism at its worst. ONe example is the current debate over driverless cars. Should the govt step in with various safety rules, regulation rules and if so at what point in the innovation process. The problem is regulations can hamper innovation.
---------------------------------

If the choice becomes having a few guys and gals in Washington decide which industries to create or send a check in the mail or to my bank for me to spend as I choice, I vote for the check.

This is the typical "We Americans know Capitalism, no one else does" response to any suggestion involving the Government's involvement in Industry.

However, the idea of Govt creating industry has always existed even in the US. Have you ever considered why solar power has become so popular in the US over the past 10-15 years? Because George W Bush's administration initiated a program for incentives/subsidies for solar power which the Obama administration continued to support/expand. The solar sector added tens of thousands of jobs to the US economy. And even when some subsidies are routinely withdrawn or reduced, the solar power revolution continues to flourish because it has reached a size significant enough to be self-sustaining.

The so-called 'cash for clunkers' is another example of Govt reinvigorating an ailing industry and helping it become self-supporting through a short-term intervention.

Even the internet which you quote actually was primarily a success due to various Governments (notably the US Deptt of Defense). ICANN, which was critical to the proliferation of internet as we know it, was originally established by the US Govt. If you think ICANN is trivial, try and imagine a websphere where one had to type numeric addresses to access various sites.

So NO, PLEASE DON'T view my post through your prism full of distorted notions about capitalism. Such prisms tend to complicate simple pictures to render them confused & meaningless.

[kenberg]

shyams, on 2016-August-22, 17:20, said:

In 1975, the US population was 215m and the numbers employed was 78m. If you take percentages, the past workforce ratios were lower than the present.

I'm not disputing your notion that the future could be people not working. However, I am not sure how the current employed figures buttress your theory about the future of the workforce in any manner.

Social structure was going through change, but not yet completed. In 1950 I knew few women who worked. One was divorced, the mother of a friend worked part time, I can't think of a third, except for my teachers. In 1975 the number was larger. Today it is much larger still Of course "not working" was and is "not working", but the social arrangement was different so that we should go easy on what conclusion we draw from sheer numbers. In 1950 my guess is that close to half of the 35 year old population was not working. One of Mike's questions, for example, was what will these non-working people do with their lives? Well, the half in my family that wasn't working kept house, fixed me breakfast, got me off to school and so on. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to ask her why she did not have a job.

Most numbers need work.

[mike777]

shyams, on 2016-August-22, 17:45, said:

This is the typical "We Americans know Capitalism, no one else does" response to any suggestion involving the Government's involvement in Industry.

However, the idea of Govt creating industry has always existed even in the US. Have you ever considered why solar power has become so popular in the US over the past 10-15 years? Because George W Bush's administration initiated a program for incentives/subsidies for solar power which the Obama administration continued to support/expand. The solar sector added tens of thousands of jobs to the US economy. And even when some subsidies are routinely withdrawn or reduced, the solar power revolution continues to flourish because it has reached a size significant enough to be self-sustaining.

The so-called 'cash for clunkers' is another example of Govt reinvigorating an ailing industry and helping it become self-supporting through a short-term intervention.

Even the internet which you quote actually was primarily a success due to various Governments (notably the US Deptt of Defense). ICANN, which was critical to the proliferation of internet as we know it, was originally established by the US Govt. If you think ICANN is trivial, try and imagine a websphere where one had to type numeric addresses to access various sites.

So NO, PLEASE DON'T view my post through your prism full of distorted notions about capitalism. Such prisms tend to complicate simple pictures to render them confused & meaningless.

Cash for clunkers was a disaster wow talk about bias and a prism. Solar panel subsidies a disaster and your view of the invention of the internet, what we call the internet today does nothing but continue a myth belief in a myth. The internet continues to be invented by millions of individual decisions, not a few in Washington. What govt, American govt, can do is help support private property rights and freedom of innovation from being trampled by fascists. I am actually old enough to be one of the first to get to use the early versions of what became the internet at the Univ. Of Illinois. This was decades before "Mosiac". And yes we can go back a century to the land for railroads deal the govt made.

Side note I am currently reading a very interesting book on the battle between Edison, Telsa and Westinghouse and how America became Electric.


With all of the above said I do appreciate your thoughtful posts and yes I should try my best and temper my own bias.

[kenberg]

A few more words about those who can't be in the workforce. I am not convinced that this is an absolute number. Maybe someone is not qualified for a job at the moment. I certainly have known people who have delayed having kids until they were in a better position to support them. This is not intended to deny a problem. There is one. But I think it would be useful to know what the size is of the population who not only do not now have any marketable skill but are also so incompetent that there is no hope that s/he ever could have a marketable skill. I think that number is small. I have known people who, by now, it seems certain will never hold a job for long. But that's not the same thing.

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2016-August-22, 17:59, said:

A few more words about those who can't be in the workforce. I am not convinced that this is an absolute number. Maybe someone is not qualified for a job at the moment. I certainly have known people who have delayed having kids until they were in a better position to support them. This is not intended to deny a problem. There is one. But I think it would be useful to know what the size is of the population who not only do not now have any marketable skill but are also so incompetent that there is no hope that s/he ever could have a marketable skill. I think that number is small. I have known people who, by now, it seems certain will never hold a job for long. But that's not the same thing.

So many issues difficult to know the answers to so many questions with so many variables. I mean just for example the ever changing definition of "marketable skill" The government can certainly hire and pay people to do many many jobs or no job at all. However is this the most efficient or productive?

It may be more efficient and productive to hire a robot and send humans a check in the mail for them to decide how to use their time and money.? I mean guys, males, may spend the money on pills/booze or women or gambling or a nice couch and tv...whatever....

But some may give it to a charity of their choice

[kenberg]

The trick, and I think it is difficult, is to get as clear an idea as possible as to what the numbers are.

[kenrexford]

All of this of course makes no sense. There is no way that an economy cannot afford to pay people to work to earn an income but has the ability to afford to use the profits of companies to pay people to not work. It simply cannot be. The only way that would make sense is if a worker actually cost more harm by working than he does not working. Obviously there's something off in the calculations.

[akwoo]

kenberg, on 2016-August-22, 17:59, said:

A few more words about those who can't be in the workforce. I am not convinced that this is an absolute number. Maybe someone is not qualified for a job at the moment. I certainly have known people who have delayed having kids until they were in a better position to support them. This is not intended to deny a problem. There is one. But I think it would be useful to know what the size is of the population who not only do not now have any marketable skill but are also so incompetent that there is no hope that s/he ever could have a marketable skill. I think that number is small. I have known people who, by now, it seems certain will never hold a job for long. But that's not the same thing.

I think it's important to realize the pigeonhole principle applies at numbers other than 0.

What I mean is that, if we have 20 million people who are only able to acquire marketable skills A, B, C, D, and E, and only 10 million jobs using A, B, C, D, and E, we still have a problem, even if everyone can acquire a marketable skill.

This is a simple idea, but it's much harder to figure out if we have this problem than to figure out if anyone has no marketable skills at all.

kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 18:26, said:

All of this of course makes no sense. There is no way that an economy cannot afford to pay people to work to earn an income but has the ability to afford to use the profits of companies to pay people to not work. It simply cannot be. The only way that would make sense is if a worker actually cost more harm by working than he does not working. Obviously there's something off in the calculations.

The problem isn't paying people to earn an income, but paying people to earn an income that is enough for them to afford basic food and shelter. If a person can only contribute $.10 per hour of work, we have a problem even though their contribution is positive.

[kenrexford]

akwoo, on 2016-August-22, 18:53, said:

I think it's important to realize the pigeonhole principle applies at numbers other than 0.

What I mean is that, if we have 20 million people who are only able to acquire marketable skills A, B, C, D, and E, and only 10 million jobs using A, B, C, D, and E, we still have a problem, even if everyone can acquire a marketable skill.

This is a simple idea, but it's much harder to figure out if we have this problem than to figure out if anyone has no marketable skills at all.



The problem isn't paying people to earn an income, but paying people to earn an income that is enough for them to afford basic food and shelter. If a person can only contribute $.10 per hour of work, we have a problem even though their contribution is positive.

my guess is that you live in a large metropolitan area. This is a common problem in my experience with assessing things. People who do not live in large metropolitan areas can live fairly well on $10 an hour. Not Great by any means but okay. There is often a miscalculation by people who live in metropolitan areas on what is a living wage.