This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Global Reality - Surplus Of Labor, Scarcity Of Paid Work

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Global Reality: Surplus Of Labor, Scarcity Of Paid Work

The industries that are increasing productivity do so by eliminating entire industries and entire job categories.

The global economy is facing a structural surplus of labor and a scarcity of paid work. Here is the critical backdrop for the global recession that is unfolding and the stated desire of central banks and states everywhere for "economic growth": most of the so-called "growth" since the 2008 global financial meltdown was funded by sovereign debt and "free money" spun by central banks, not organic growth based on rising earned incomes.

Take away the speculation dependent on "free money" and the global stimulus dependent on massive quantities of fresh debt, and how much "growth" would be left?

What policy makers and pundits dare not admit is that the global economy is entering the "end of paid work" foreseen by Jeremy Rifkin. I have covered this topic in depth many times, starting with End of Work, End of Affluence (December 5, 2008).

The industries that are rapidly increasing productivity and profits are doing so by eliminating jobs and the need for labor. The Web is chewing up industry after industry, wiping out entire sectors that once supported hundreds of thousands of jobs while creating a few thousand new jobs that require high-level skills and mobility.

Robotics are replacing factory labor throughout the world--yes, even in "low-wage" China. When I first toured a variety of factories in China in 2000, many were little more than simple warehouses filled with long tables where workers assembled and packaged cheap light fixtures, etc. by hand. Others had robotic machines stamping out circuit boards that were then hand-assembled into monitors, etc.

The defect rate was high in these settings. Machines are increasingly replacing hand labor in China. Much is made of "labor shortages" in certain southern cities, but what that actually means is a shortage of young workers (overwhelmingly preferred over older workers by manufacturers) willing to work for low wages.

Machines don't go on strike, their wages don't rise by government mandate, they don't call in sick, and they don't need supervision. In effect, workers are replaced by capital invested in robotics and software.

China is already built out. Airports, railway stations, rail lines, subways, highways, stadiums, giant malls, tens of millions of flats--they're already over-built. Nobody dare admit it, but China is already to the point that new construction is either "bridges to nowhere" i.e. redundant or marginal and only funded as a jobs program, or replacement of buildings that are often less than 25 years old, or speculative buildings that are mostly empty and will stay that way.

The Internet has enabled enormous reductions of labor input. A mere 15 years ago when I first learned HTML (1997), you had to code your own site or learn some fairly sophisticated website creation/management software packages, and you needed to set up a server or pay a host. Now anyone can set up a Blogspot or equivalent blog for free in a few minutes with few (if any) technical skills, and the site is free.

A staggering range of complex business services are available for low cost, enabling one person to perform work that a mere 15 years ago required a half-dozen people. Everyone talks about offshoring as the primary cause of jobs being scarce in the U.S., but the much larger force is technology in the form of Web-enabled software.

A mere decade ago publishing a book was a time-consuming, costly venture that required substantial capital and labor inputs. Now it takes less than an hour to publish a book on Kindle and the cost is zero other than the hour of labor. Not only that, but the cost of distributing that book is also near-zero, and the cost to the consumer is a fraction of the cost of print books a decade ago.

That is simply one example of many. Here's another: a tax preparation program that costs $60 can (for the common conventional tax situations) typically replace an accountant that charged $500 or more.

The other trend is the cost of labor in the developed West is rising as systemic friction adds cost without adding productivity. Workers in the U.S. only see their wages stagnate, but their employers see total labor costs rising as healthcare costs rise year after year. In effect, the U.S. pays an 8% VAT tax to support a bloated, paperwork-pushing, inefficient and fraud-laced healthcare system that costs twice as much as a percentage of GDP as other advanced democracies.

A worker making $60,000 a year costs the employer $90,000 a year. No wonder employers are shifting to contract labor (no exposure to skyrocketing healthcare) and part-time flex-labor. No wonder many entrepreneurs are selling their high-overhead businesses and becoming flexible, low-cost one-person enterprises.

When it costs a lot to hire someone, the risk of hiring them rises, too. That is the unspoken context of high-cost economies. The productivity increases enabled by web-based software and services eliminate entire swaths of labor--not for this season or this business cycle, but forever.

If we train 30 million software engineers, will that create 30 million paid positions for these skills? No, it won't. The dynamics of creating jobs is not the same as that of training people to do a job.

I will write more about these trends in the coming days.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:41 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING JOBS. CHINA KIN BUILDS AR SHITZ 4 US.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Richard Chesler
Richard Chesler's picture

the U.S. pays an 8% VAT tax to support a bloated, paperwork-pushing, inefficient and fraud-laced healthcare system

 

Pure awesomeness of Obamacare!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

We could knock this cost back, the degenerative diseases of civilisation, by taxing the hell out of all sugar and refined flour, and stopping entirely the vilification of "saturated fat" and promotion of "low fat" diets.   

Right now the government is in the tank for makers of the white death, sugar and its metabolically identical evil twin "high fructose corn syrup", and THAT is causing a lot of degenerative disease, which correlates with the obesity epidemic.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:49 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

 

 

1)  Surplus of labor.  

2)  Shortage of paid work.

Go ahead and try to spin an inflation story out of those two facts.

 

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:51 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Easy, break a few supply lines and watch how expensive things will get.  Yeah we have that (fill in the blank), we just can't deliver it.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

Touche ... semantics of course.   (I modded you up)

Yes, you are completely right.  *Price inflation* can (and will) occur even in a deflation as total money and credit contract.  Supply chain disruptions did cause massive price spikes in the 30's.

Deflation is often defined as a surplus in productive capacity, which was my point above.  But you're correct:  Price spikes in certain areas will almost certainly occur as productive capacity is taken offline.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:14 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The inflationary increases are not going to labor.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:27 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

They go to labor last.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:32 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

Hey, little Richard!  You have any idea how stupid and wrong that remark is?  I didn't think so.

The article did not say we WOULD be paying in essence an 8% VAT in the future.  We are paying it now, and we have been paying it all along.  The reasons are simple, and the solutions are likely to drive you even more apeshit than you probably already are.  That 8% is the profit margin extracted from the system by our privatized healthcare providers.

Approximately 17% of our healthcare cost is spend on 'administering' the programs.  In most of the first world, it is 8-9%.  Medicare, with fraud and all, delivers healthcare for about 4%, and the VA even less.  No marketing, no fat commissions, no bloated bonuses, and no dividends to shareholders.  Those are the facts.  Obamacare may or may not reduce the overall costs of healthcare, but it will assuredly cut the rate of increase in the rise of admin costs.  If we want to get to real effenciency, the only true route is a single-payer system.  That may or may not be the desire of the majority, but it is the truth.....but you won't hear it on TV.  The healthcare and insurance lobbies are far too powerful for politicians to tell it, and provide far too many advertising $'s for the media to tell it.  It just gets tossed around like a hot potato as, year by year, the costs spiral out of control and the public pays -- with more cut-backs in employer programs, rising costs for employers, almost impossible to find and afford prices for independents, and loss of competitiveness (loss of jobs) for almost all businesses because of dramatically higher helthcare costs than competing countries face.

So, what do you propose?  Romneycare, maybe?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:13 | Link to Comment roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Mrs. Roadhazard just got a bill from the local hospital for $227.00 That was the charge just for an "interview" with a new doctor. I threw it in the fucking trash.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:27 | Link to Comment maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

How about catastrophic insurance, say for everything above $10,000? Like INSURANCE should actually pay for - unforseen, crippling expenses? Anything less is purchase directly by the patient from savings or by borrowing and the associated administrative costs are gone. Why I want to pay somebody to buy my medicine (an insurance company) I still haven't figured out yet. I'd die without food but that doesn't incentivise me to pay somebody to go grocery shopping for me. 

How about a dual public-private system? Just as we have people paying taxes for public education yet send their kids to private schools, we can build a public medical system for everyone with tax money and then allow those who want better service to pay for care at private facilities out of pocket and/or with private insurance. Governments at all levels can only pay so much for healthcare, so if we can accept living within a budget then government can control medical costs by simply limiting spending to money in hand. The level of service delivered by the public hospital will be inferior to what we have today, so we'll have to get over the idea that everybody can have the same standard of care regardless of anyone's ability to pay.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 17:11 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

That is cetainly part of the solution, and is the only way I have been able to contiue to afford to cover myself and employees.  Over the past couple of decades, we have had HMO's, MSA's, now PPO combined w/HSA.  We raised deductibles from $200 to $500, then to $1,000, and now $2500.

Let's not forget in this little discussion that healthcare cost is the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US, too.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 21:22 | Link to Comment SeattleBruce
SeattleBruce's picture

"Obamacare may or may not reduce the overall costs of healthcare, but it will assuredly cut the rate of increase in the rise of admin costs."

For a massively complex topic, this is a massive assumption.  The private system may not be the most efficient delivery system to a fairly populous, diverse country like the US, but it has driven medical innovation worldwide you can't deny - and what of that?  That said, I agree with other comments here that suggest reforming the system short of socializing the whole shabang.

"The healthcare and insurance lobbies are far too powerful for politicians to tell it, and provide far too many advertising $'s for the media to tell it."

This isn't the only place where the politician crony capitalist equation if failing society - what on God's green earth makes you think that the politicians/technocrats in charge of such a single payer system would/could make it work in the way you dream, and what would replace the medical innovation engine in the world?

I think the real problem is the total capture of politics and crony capitalists by debt based, non-accountable money. 

Change that, and you bring accountability to society, where hardly any exists today.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 22:10 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Always good to remember this: 

but it has driven medical innovation worldwide you can't deny - and what of that?

There IS a return from the "massive malinvestment" that results from misguided political effort.  Hard to figure the best way to quantify that return, though.  I do really like aluminum foil.

For sure, there are some people who derive far greater return than others--if you're lucky enough to have your own personal disorder defeated and you're incredibly wealthy, you've pulled in the maximum benefit for the same relative cost borne by others, the vast majority of whom never see the benefit.

It's almost like you're getting the reward for services you never agreed to pay for. 

Tue, 05/08/2012 - 02:22 | Link to Comment SeattleBruce
SeattleBruce's picture

And what about getting a needed surgery in a month - vs. 2 years in some countries - these issues are complex.  I'm not saying the system doesn't need massive overhaul.  Just not in the direction of socialism.  Just like the financial system needs massive overhaul - just not in the direction of socialism...

Tue, 05/08/2012 - 12:09 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If you prefer fascism to socialism, you should be delighted with Obamacare.  That's the whole point. 

The government created laws which force individual citizens to pay private for-profit businesses.

Socialism is what paid for the research and all, though.  Medicare/Medicaid/etc is socialism.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:13 | Link to Comment sunaJ
sunaJ's picture

Is this not a symptom of a world coming to grips with the undermining of what goodwill remains in fiat?  People are going to find other ways to survive, since we live in a world where dollars are necessary for survival.  As fewer people use the manipulated fiat currencies to get increasingly less return, people will find alternative ways to trade goods - ways that probably mean less revenue for central planning.  It will be a matter of survival as computers chase increasingly irrelevant red and green graph lines.  An algo cannot take into consideration how hungry or angry people are.  Is it not mass distrust of the currency that leads to hyperinflation? 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:30 | Link to Comment Waffen
Waffen's picture

indeed.. hyperinflation is not a result of over printing, its a result of a loss of confidence

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:40 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Hyperinflation is, by definition, expanding the money supply far beyond the general economy.  Over-printing is what does it.

Loss of confidence in the currency is a result of the massive over-printing.

So yes, loss of confidence is a direct result of hyperinflation.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:54 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Through in a few supply-line breaks and things get real interesting.  Watch how expensive things can get when nothing can be delivered.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Waffen
Waffen's picture

nope..  loss of confidence and increase in velocity comes first.

hyperinflation is a result of this not a cause. it becomes a positive feedback loop, but loss of confidence must come first

I would cite FOFOA's long treatise on Hyperinflation to explain this to the most finite of detail.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:35 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

nope..  loss of confidence and increase in velocity comes first.

Flat out wrong. 

You don't have a clue about basic monetary theory ...and neither does FOFOA.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 17:44 | Link to Comment margaris
margaris's picture

its a bit of a hen and egg problem?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 20:38 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sort of.  Both conditions cohabitate.  There is no currency debasement without loss of faith (over a multi-decade timescale--longest fiat currency regime in history only lasted some 60 years), and no loss of faith without currency debasement and/or abandonment of said currency (and return to hard currency).

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:53 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

Close, but backwards Waffen.  

A loss of confidence is the result of overprinting.  

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:56 | Link to Comment Waffen
Waffen's picture

Uhm..

I am not sure how I am wrong. Hyperinflation is a result of lack of confidence and thuse the increase in the velocity of money.

Now a lack of confidence can result from overprinting, but overprinting does not directly cause hyperinflation, it simply creates medium to high inflation.

Without an increase in velocity there will be no hyperinflation.  It is thus a lack of confidence that is the key.

 

See Japan, they damn well could print to sextillion.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:29 | Link to Comment gwiss
gwiss's picture

Good to see that some are aware of how it works.  Central banks don't push a population into hyperinflation, but rather are sucked over the edge of the hyperinflation waterfall whether they want to go or not.  They initially create the conditions that create loss of confidence by printing too much, but once confidence is lost, velocity takes off as everyone tries to abandon money for real goods.  Banks don't have enough currency to handle this demand, thus requiring bank holidays while extra money is printed and distributed.  The bank holiday, of course, simply stokes the panic, such that once the holiday is over, the banks are immediately emptied once again.

 

One thing I have not figured out yet, however -- how does this all work with electronic currency?  It would seem that the sparcity of physical currency compared to demand as velocity increases exponentially is what drives the hyperinflation part.  With electronic currency, you are not limited by the demands of printing and distribution.  So, is hyperinflation possible in a system that functions mostly with electronic currency?

 

Or, does the government enact their typical "precisely the completely wrong answer" solution such as tracking electronic payments for some tax purposes, thus flushing commerce out of the electronic system and into the cash system where the mismatch between currency demand and supply can allow hyperinflation?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 20:15 | Link to Comment sunaJ
sunaJ's picture

I think the latter, because revenue is the blood of the beast, it will choose to attack cash, just like Spain is right now.

They cannot possibly print enough dollars, so maybe they will try to keep up by handing you a mandatory EFT/SNAPS card.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:41 | Link to Comment jazze
jazze's picture

"China is built out"

 

Have you ever been to China's countryside?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:53 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Have you ever been to China's empty malls?

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:48 | Link to Comment Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

Have you ever been to China and had your picture taken by a local because they had never seen a white person before?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:32 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Is that what they told you?    In what language?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:08 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

They probably just wanted your photo so that they could use it on their US Citizenism dart board.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Confusius say: "Round eye make good bullseye."

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:18 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

And Anonucius say:

"Brown eye make good Chinese citizenism troll".

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:34 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

GMadScientist

 

Yes. Department stores Beijing. Example of everyone having  a "rice-bowl" job, no one doing anything.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:43 | Link to Comment mickeyman
mickeyman's picture

There's lots of work--only a temporary mismatch in pricing of labour. Once we get expectations down to a few dollars a day in N Am we'll be back in business!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:50 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Good luck trying to catch that knife falling in a bottomless well.  How about the BRICS pay their labor more?  First the currency wars, then the trade wars, then...

 

We have all been here before and the is a very real cost for creating capital without adding any real value (which which everyone is doing).

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:15 | Link to Comment Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

Canada's Globe and Mail reports there are 300,000 temporary workers in Canada as we speak, and the Editorial dept is pushing for 400,000 new immigrants per year (our population is 33,500,000 approx).  A market for labour based on supply and demand has been irrevocably harmed in Canada and most other western nations by central planners, corporations and politicians.  You can't have any kind of price discovery in the market if the central planners just print more money/workers whenver they see fit.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

And the Mop and Pail got monkeyhammered in the comments section by Canadians who have had it up to here with immigrants.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:17 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The importation of technology workers has destroyed good paying jobs in the private sector.  These were jobs for which people trained for years and at great expense.  Now the ability of these people to pay taxes, pay mortgages and raise children has been destroyed.  Their children will not be gulled so easily.  And the blame lies squarely with the government.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:45 | Link to Comment oddjob
oddjob's picture

They did wonders with Nortel.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:36 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Workers in the U.S. only see their wages stagnate, but their employers see total labor costs rising as healthcare costs rise year after year.

Yes, and thank you ObamaCare, as it raised mine & my spouses NET out of pocket rates for same coverage as past 5yrs, by a flat 15%,as I am sure it has most of the folks here(if they are employed).

That amount was enough to pay ALL my year end county,city, and school  taxes.

So, in light of that,I figure it was a 30% rise..................as I now will have to come up with  it NET out of pocket when tax time for houses comes due.

Employer is HUGE, and still had to pass along the increases.And, its ( O Care) not even but partially been put into effect.........Imagine the beast that awaits us all if SCOTUS doesn't kill it all.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:45 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

Obama has not even been president for 4 years.  The relentless rise in healthcare costs has been going on for freaking ever.  I have been paying the healthcare cost for my employees for 30 years, and do know a little about it.  Some call it Obamacare & some call it Romneycare (the original model), but the facts are that it will cut the rise in overall admin costs, and it has little to do with what you have expericenced over the past 4 years.  In fact, the most dramatic increases I saw were earlier in the decade, and the new policy we just re-negotiated last month had the lowest increase (about 4%) we have had in years.

If you want to drive down healthcare costs, the best and fastest way to do it is go to single payer system like Medicare & the VA.  You can call that whatever you like, but our privte, for-profit, healthcare system is reason for the 8% VAT mentioned in the article.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:11 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The health care system needs radical reform.  The whole system needs to be opened up to free market competition.  ObamaCare is a disastrous step in the wrong direction.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:27 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

Maybe, mabe not, but I agree that the whole thing is a freaking mess.  Obamacare, Romeycare, or the Affordable Care Act......nothing more than a compromise with the insurance/healthcare lobby, and it could conceiveably become even more expensive than now.  But it is hard to imagine how the overhead costs will grow much more than they are today.  Everyone in the healthcare system seems to think it's just fine to gouge at every turn, and that they are somehow entitiled to bloated income streams.

But I do agreee that opening up the system we have now to muchmore competition would do  lot to drive down costs.  Rally, why can't I buy my health insuance from any nationally rated company, instead of the handful available to me approved by my state?  Why is their an anti-truxt exemption for these maggots?

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:39 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Why do you want health insurance in the first place?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 19:10 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

Because I am not stupid.  Reason enough?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 19:48 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If that's as far as you're able to piece it together, OK.  You tried, I'm sure.

Health insurance is just another anti-service taking a cut from an industry it has no interest in.  Do what you like with your money, but you should know by now it's not going to get you what you need if something horrible happens.

That's why it's SO INCREDIBLY PROFITABLE.

How do you suppose health-care worked in the '50s, when virtually NO ONE had medical insurance?

Tue, 05/08/2012 - 09:25 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

How did it work?  Well, life expectancy was shorter, we had far fewer expensive drugs, tests, and treatment options. 

And also, importantly, most hospitals were not for profit, either public or owned by a charitable or religeous organization.

I did not say I liked the situation.  I don't, but play the hand I'm dealt.  I prefer to pay a little along the way to prevent a wipeout if tragedy comes my way.

Tue, 05/08/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

75% of the "wipeouts" in the USA due to medical expense are people who have insurance.

Tue, 05/08/2012 - 17:29 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

That may be the case, but does not say anything about how many poeple would have been bankrupted had they NOT been insured, does it?

Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:36 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

No, it says that "medical insurance" is a functionally fraudulent racket that doesn't deliver what you're paying for.

If you want to play ball, that's your business.  I've HEARD the 3-card monte dealer occasionally lets a sucker win, but I've never seen it happen.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:37 | Link to Comment gwiss
gwiss's picture

It's an odd thing -- in most venues, people understand that the free market leads to lowest cost at highest quality.  That's theoretically why we have anti-trust legislation in the US, because supposedly we all understand that monopolies lead to highest cost at lowest quality.  It's also why businesses always try for a monopoly situation, because they understand it juices their profits.  What they don't want is a low barrier to entry business with lots of competition, because that situation is really tough to make good money -- the competition eats up your margins.

 

So --- any thoughts on why your thought process seems to be precisely backwards to this generally understood principle?

 

Hint-- you have to look for other monopoly interference with the market.  You are suggesting a monopoly to remedy a problem created by another monopoly.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:20 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Adding entry barrier is part of competition. That is called duress.

In a competition, the goal is to eliminate the concurrent. And on one hand, this is achieved by preventing a concurrent from performing at the concurrent's best.

US citizen corporations do not reject competition. They compete.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 17:13 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Padding entry barrio is smart of decomposition.  That is called durian.

In decomposition, the jail is to eradicate the conch current.  And no one's hand, this is perceived by venting a red currant from pre-forming the red current's pest.

Bite the wax tadpole!

 

PS: Dear Chinese citizenism dishwashing troll: your every post here makes me feel like I am reading the transcription of a game board during a Scrabble match between four austistic and/or retarded psychopaths.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 21:49 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

"It takes a hard man to make a chicken amorous!" (KFC translated into Spanish) -- ranks right up there with "Bite the wax tadpole!"

"Pepsi, it will bring your dead ancestors back to life!"

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 22:19 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

akak said:

Padding entry barrio is smart of decomposition.  That is called durian.

Very true. And, as you must know by now, layered intrusion Bartiromo must intelligent the decay. That is called Duluth.

In decomposition, the jail is to eradicate the conch current.  And no one's hand, this is perceived by venting a red currant from pre-forming the red current's pest.

Yes, recursively so, as in decompression, the gaol is to elucidate the scallop amperage. As with glass finger appendage, this is punctuated by violating a black currant tea while par-boiling a black currant pesto.

Sanguine and contemporaneous, as you well noted.

 

Tue, 05/08/2012 - 17:31 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

++2000.  lol!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 20:32 | Link to Comment sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Keeping It Simple:  The Neocon Continuum

I’ve noticed the inability of some to absorb the large amount of facts, perhaps an overwhelming amount of facts, regarding the same or similar political appointments from the Reagan administration to the Obama administration, so I’ll keep it as simple as possible.

In the last Bush administration, George W. appointed Matthew Slaughter, a Dartmouth economics professor, to his Council of Economic Advisors.  Slaughter was an evangelist for jobs offshoring, and frequently stated that for every one job the U.S. multinationals created abroad, they created two jobs in America.

Clearly, this was and is unsupported fiction and Slaughter got that fantasy figure from a report out of the McKinsey Global Institute, whose author was Diana Farrell.

And who did President Obama appoint as one of his economic advisors?

Why….Diana Farrell, of course!

Hence the continuity; hence the neocon continuum.

This fantasy figure was an “assumption” – meaning Farrell assumed it was so, with absolutely no supporting data to prove it.

My assumption is that Jessica Alba, Rose McGowan and Christina Aguilera are all madly in love with me, but simply haven’t yet found my phone number.

Both assumptions are equally flakey.

If two jobs are created for every one job offshored or created overseas, then we would have witnessed at least 74 million jobs created in the private sector this past decade ---- that never happened!

The past 10 years America lost at least 37 million jobs:  15 million jobs offshored and 22 million jobs created offshore by U.S. multinationals.

That’s a bunch of jobs lost ---- and directly correlates to the rise in poverty, homelessness and the increase in food stamp recipients.

In  a recent BBC interview a former member of the Thatcher government who helped to privatize that government, was identified as occupying the position of vice chairman at the UBS Investment Bank.

Phil Gramm, who did the same thing in America, was rewarded with the position of vice chairman at UBS North America.

(It is important to note here that the Rothschild family was seriously involved with privatization during the Heath and Thatcher governments, just as the Rockefeller, Morgan, Koch, Johnson and Pew families led the way in the privatization of everything in America!)

The republican Phil Gramm’s contributions, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, both signed into law by democratic President Bill Clinton, were crucial to the super-concentration of wealth and the economic meltdown.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act superseded and negated the National Banking Acts of 1963 and 1964, although the O.C.C. – under the Bush administration – would illegally invoke the National Banking Act to circumvent the state attorneys-general attempts to abide by anti-predatory lending laws.

This was the second monster-sized legal violation; the first was when Alan Greenspan signed off on the merger of Travelers and Citicorp in 1998 in direct violation of Glass-Steagall --- Greenspan illegally pre-approved an illegal merger --- thus Greenspan gave the go ahead for predatory lending.

When the super-rich and their U.S. multinationals offshore the vast amount of jobs, technology, R&D and investment, they were dismantling the economy and destroying the work force.

The total number of engineering, computer science and R&D jobs have fallen steadily in the U.S. since at least 1999 (actually since 1990) --- add to that all those manufacturing jobs offshored --- and one really begins to grasp the enormity of the situation.

The banks, oil companies, munitions companies and biopharmaceuticals aren’t the faceless, monolithic entities their media/PR people present them as --- just as they aren’t stand-alone financial entities --- they are owned by the same select group of ultra-rich.

When Steve Cole (New America Foundation, funded by the Peterson Foundation) writes a book on ExxonMobil he neglects to mention who owns them?

When he is interviewed repeatedly on various shows, his interviewers somehow always neglect to ask who owns ExxonMobil ---- now how is this even remotely possible?

Is no one curious?  Or is that a forbidden question?

And this is why we should vote Green in 2012 and elect Dr. Jill Stein for president!

Wed, 05/09/2012 - 04:35 | Link to Comment Gazooks
Gazooks's picture

forbidden. now, go to your room

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 21:44 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

D@ammit!  There are illegal immigrants in the Emergency room that demand FREE health care!  Suck it up, already!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:56 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

Your debts remain long after your wages have disappeared.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 19:27 | Link to Comment johnnynaps
johnnynaps's picture

Sure there's lots of work (Even though some jobs offer society very little). But, there's even more humans. Supply and demand my friend.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:45 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Would anyone really expect anything else in a finite world being filled up with useless humans?

 

Long soylent green and black markets.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:53 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

All of these Future Farmers of America sure do help with peak oil.

In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.  As of 2008, approximately 2-3 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:55 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

Someone better start breeding a shit ton of mules.  A guy could make a hell of a living in years to come.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:56 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Selling Poults is a nice business too. Not too many folks want to raise day old chicks...

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:18 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:10 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

India was over 75% agrarian 15 years ago.

Now it's 17% and sliding and we have at least 5,000 farmer suicides a year from debt burden situations exacerbated by crop failure and declining yield due to chemical methods employed.

Food, it's what's disappearing, fast.

Fast! Hah!

ori

 

population-control-vectors/

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:43 | Link to Comment financial apoca...
financial apocalyptic contagion's picture

ORI- 
FUCK MONSANTO and the Congress.

Those Motherfuckers force the farmers to use those fucked up artifical stuff that Monsanto wants to replace the indegenous seeds with.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:54 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Yup FA. And these guys have deep pockets. When they first came, they had their offices burnt down, riots against terminator seeds, no seed saving policies etc.

But two generations of programming.... voila... they are everywhere, doing illegal shit they can get away with..... with impunity in a lawless, bribe-able India. Really sad fucks, these frankenfood mafiosos.

ori

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:35 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Yeah, and what they are growing, wonderful stuff like sugar laden corn syrup, and cheap cheap starch, is responsible for an epidemic of degenerative diseases, subsidized and recommended by all arms of the federal government, at the behest not just of agribusiness, but of its larger downstream customers, the packaged food makers.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:01 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Food, it's what's disappearing, fast.

Yep, and they have ALREADY  passed laws preventing you from growing your own.

Assigned multiple agencies to do the policing. Got a garden, make sure its well out of sight,or your ass will be hip deep in Caca if the Watchers catch you.

Meanwhile the KIWIS are in a tantrum, China just snagged a nice oart of their prime land with FIAT.For a 150 Million,they just lost part of thei land, they will never get back.

As they are buying up every open/up for sale piece of farmand and water on the planet.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:10 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

You confuse things greatly.  The food isn't disappearing, just the farmers.  Yes, Monsanto is a terrible and abusive company whos shareholders should go to prison, and whos executives should be racked over hot coals, but the Green Revolution continues, and they have been a part of that.  

You might have 5000 suicides a year, but there is no way that that is the only method of farmer loss in the last 15 years.  The fact is that most of them have gotten other jobs, increasing their productivity, and become wealthier as a result, despite the greatest efforts of their central bankers and politicians to stop it.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:07 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

You might have 5000 suicides a year, but there is no way that that is the only method of farmer loss in the last 15 years. The fact is that most of them have gotten other jobs, increasing their productivity, and become wealthier as a result, despite the greatest efforts of their central bankers and politicians to stop it

_______________________________________

Yep, they have become gravediggers.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:21 | Link to Comment Marco
Marco's picture

The green revolution is slowing down ... and is dependent on artificial fertilizers.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:51 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

Have they become wealthier?  In what respect?  For how long?  At what cost to their progeny?  Man can be rich in many ways, poor in many others.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

They make more money, they save that money.  Their savings allow them to make investment in capital.  The capital allows more things to be produced at lower cost (both in terms of money and inputs).  Very simple.

You can take your spiritual riches and try to buy a bag of organic fair trade oranges with them.  Let us know how that works out for you.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:14 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"They make more money, they save that money.  Their savings allow them to make investment in capital."

I wish.  Thanks to central banks and ZIRP, generic growth and investment from savings is no longer possible and will be outlawed shortly.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:28 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

EXACTLY.  I can't believe how difficult this concept is for some people.  They just want to continue deseeding cotton by hand.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:33 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

....or, they sell their land, move to the city, work in a factory, facory moves to next low-cost country, they have no job, spend their savings trying to live....and they have no land anymore.  You totally ignored the question of progeny, while assigning your own narrow, materialistic definition of wealth and assume acheiving it is a given linear path.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:54 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Cost of labor is very small compared to the cost of capital.  You really have to treat your capital like shit to make it leave your country, which is exactly what the US did.

Accumulated capital is wealth.  There is no other definition, except amongst dumbass hippies.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 17:22 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

Guess there is no religion in your life, organized or otherwise, beyond the worship of mammon.  Do you have family that you love?  The sound of greed and exploitation rings loudly in your words.  Twice now, you have ignored questions about what comes after you.

The capital in this country bought the legislation allowing it to leave and return to make more profits at the cost of our collective futures.  The accumulated wealth of America has been stolen by men of the attitude you so arrogantly display here.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 20:49 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Fuck off with that whiney bullshit.  YOU are the one that wants to destroy the world economy by halting all technological progress.  YOU are the one who claims that jobs are more important than production (the sentiment adopted by the Soviets, which lead directly to mass starvation).  YOU are the one who worships death (Ba'al) with your utterly genocidal thoughts and "ideas". 

The CAPITAL of this country has done NOTHING but provide leverage for labor to produce more, and make you RICHER THAN ANY KING from more than a thousand years ago.  It is the CENTRAL BANKERS and the POLITICIANS who have stolen the money, you stupid, ignorant peice of human filth.  

You blame the effects of their crimes on the last unspindling strand that keeps you from falling into the pit of tribalistic death.  Ignorance unto death.

Tue, 05/08/2012 - 10:13 | Link to Comment 11b40
11b40's picture

My, my.  What a tortured soul you must be.  Thanks for assigning all matter of beliefs to me that I didn't know I had.  I guess I will have to go meditate now.  Destroying the world is not easy, so I have a lot to think about and need to get on with the planning...lol.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:23 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

They make more money, they save that money. Their savings allow them to make investment in capital.

___________________________________________

Saving money is consumption. Money is debt. Debt is consumption.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:43 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

...war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

Running in circles, failing again to break new ground.

Turing test failure, again.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 20:12 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

 

Saving money is consumption. Money is debt. Debt is consumption.

So, if saving money is consumption, and consumption is debt, then saving money = debt?

Make me laugh!

Behold the contradictory non-logic of Chinese Citizenism citizen trolls ---- The Great Leap Forward into Complete Stupidity! 

Next, you will be trying to tell us how the sun really revolves around the earth --- no, not around the earth in fact, but around only China.  All thanks to the benevolent leadership of Stoolman Mousy Tongue, murderer of tens of millions of his own roadside-shitting citizens.

On second thought, I am coming to the conclusion that you are NOT just a webbot --- no webbot could be as amusing and humorous as you!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:56 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

So if I save money, then I spend it, does that mean that I consumed the same dollar twice?

You aren't too bright, are you?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 22:36 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous, Lord of US citizenism, handed down to us this bit of his inerrant wisdom:

Saving money is consumption. Money is debt. Debt is consumption.

If money = debt,

and debt = consumption,

then money = consumption.

If money = consumption,

and saving money = consumption,

then saving consumption = consumption.

Therefore, saving = 1.

This is the chinese citizenism maths.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:14 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

ORI,

I am curious......................

I communicate with a firm in India on a VERY regular basis, they provide a service to me, and I have a yearly contract.

They are absolutely the most polite, and efficient people I ever deal with on the phones, and they know their stuff.

Computer oriented.

What is the UE rate there?, these people act like if I do not rate them (through case #'s),at the top of the heap, they will go harikari.

They must get paid decent wages, and damn sure want to make sure they are always rated top of the heap...............

I sense a fearful spirit in them, as no one in this country, or any other except the Philipines, exhibit this level of service, and courtesy.Almost to the point of begging for positive feedback.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:37 | Link to Comment TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Philipinas have a courteous servitude and your observation of a fearful spirit might be right on spot. Like a compulsory liar always on the watch to keep track of lies, reactions and possible detection. Muliple faces , personalities and bilinguals...

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:46 | Link to Comment Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

The working class needs to embrace slavery and work for free.  This is what will free up capital and stimulate our economy.

- Mitt Romney

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:52 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

“Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”— ME!

-- michelle obama, eating someone's pie in Vail, Spain, Martha's Vineyard, Hawaii.....or wherever

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:54 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Ayn Rand approves this message.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:59 | Link to Comment Sauk Leader
Sauk Leader's picture

My piece went right to her thighs. Yours right to her ass.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:01 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Careful, you've got some on your sleeve. She'll take that arm clean off.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:47 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

The great thinning is at hand.  If you thought Bosch had disturbing paintings, wait until someone puts this next round to canvas.
prep. network. train, bitches.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:54 | Link to Comment Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

New study shows that 1 in 4 young people (18-35) can't make ends meet.

http://t.co/aOX2WriI

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:41 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

Shizzmoney: Not being unsympathetic, but "the poor"  in other countries don't have phones, cars, televisions, food, welfare benefits, or shelter -- check out Caracas and San Paulo. Here, most who "can't make ends meet" are living above their income level because of their spending. Not "need" but "want".

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:54 | Link to Comment Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Why do we need to work when Ben will print us all the money we need?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:00 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

"ben's" clownbux all go to dimon and blankfein.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:53 | Link to Comment CvlDobd
CvlDobd's picture

As I have said here I am looking for any opportunity to become an x-trader, x-homeowner.

I applied for a finance position at a helicopter manufacturer here locally. They wanted a BS in finance,at least. Starting pay $11.50/ hr. A BS to get $11.50. My under the table bike shop work pays $10. Unemployment pays more. Until entitlement programs are less lucrative than actual work, nothing will change.

Just watch Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode "Dennis and Dee go on welfare."

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"Move out of the sticks, fellas." - The Wolf

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:05 | Link to Comment CvlDobd
CvlDobd's picture

Lol

I lika da sticks

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 18:30 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

But surely if the entitlement benefits are halved then that Helicopter builder is going to pay $5.75 per hour? (no Shirley joke intended)

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:44 | Link to Comment narnia
narnia's picture

You'd probably only have to work about 20 hours at the bike shop each week to pay for a family of 4 if the government didn't burden you with tens of thousands of involuntary purchases each year and fire up the credit markets to make those involuntary purchases work.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:55 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

If the 1% need body doubles and body guards, we can shave 1-2% off of unemployment right there!

 

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment DavidJ
DavidJ's picture

There is also this self service issues:

 

  • Self service checkout at the grocery
  • Self service for yogurt and toppings at the frozen yogurt place (cashier to pay)
  • Self service at gas station

I am not against these, just sayin it reduces the need for labor.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:01 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

All symptoms of the margin compression squeezing businesses like a pissed off python.

Machines don't need healthcare.

 

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:21 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

... it reduces the need for labor.

No.  It simply shifts the provider of labor from the store to the purchaser.  Labor is still required.  Who is doing the labor has changed.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:11 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Spot on. US citizen economics leads people to pay to work.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Your rare insightful post of the week.

 

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:20 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Don't encourage the bigoted and retarded troll.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:52 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Encouraged in what? Depicting US citizenism?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:21 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

You know, the usual --- gibbering like an autistic and virulently anti-American baboon on crack.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:23 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Have you just encouraged me to do so?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:50 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

As if the diarrheal stream of disjointed propaganda from your keyboard needed any encouragement.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 17:02 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

But, but, debt = savings!

ROR!

Make egg roll fragments fly from my big Western nose!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:51 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Because you feel comfortable with the comment does make it insightful.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 17:26 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Yes, please tell yourself that every time you post here.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:52 | Link to Comment TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Labor is heavily taxed and thus penalized, no further disincentives needed.

Blame the Internet, all those HTML/PHP/CSS -crooks stealing jobs at 12K p.a..../sarc

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:01 | Link to Comment Dick Darlington
Dick Darlington's picture

Here is the critical backdrop for the global recession that is unfolding and the stated desire of central banks and states everywhere for "economic growth": most of the so-called "growth" since the 2008 global financial meltdown was funded by sovereign debt and "free money" spun by central banks, not organic growth based on rising earned incomes.

Exactly. And the "funny" thing is that in EU the politicians like Hollande, Monti and the unelected power-hungry sociopaths in Brussels are screaming MORE of the same aka the "growth compact". More debt financed public spending on "infrastructure" as they say to build something, anything to create PERCEPTION of growth. EU has already done that in many forms and to mention one off balance sheet vehicle through which this has been done for years is EIB. (in addition to direct deficit spending of course). EU govts even increased the EIB's off balance sheet debt financed stimulus in 2009-2011. And what did we get? MORE DEBT and a recession!!! The marginal increase in "growth" gets smaller and smaller the more debt they take on to finance the said "growth". EIB's loan book is roughly 500 BILLION already! And they just want more of the same. Long live the EUSSR!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:01 | Link to Comment Jerry Maguire
Jerry Maguire's picture

To make the transition to the "labor-less" economy, we would have to begin with a jubilee:

http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/saving-the-world-revised-ed...

http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/saving-the-world-revised-ed...

Then we can start selling stuff to each other online, I guess.  For a living.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:03 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

The author confuses correlation with causation.  The loss of jobs to productivity gains does not cause poverty, it creates wealth!  If robotics and automation made it so that anyone could produce anything at any time, anywhere, then how is that not utopia?

The vast number of blogs that exist now reveal all manner of information that reduces my cost of living, and that of many others.  

The problem comes when you have inflationary monetary policy and idiot central bankers who fear this prosperity, calling it "deflation".  They print money and by doing so confiscate the productivity gains for themselves and their friends.  THAT is the causative factor that has lead to loss of jobs and increases in poverty.  Well, that along with punative tax laws and regulations.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:11 | Link to Comment Bluntly Put
Bluntly Put's picture

That sounds purely Austrian, purists always lose themselves in the trees of their philosophy.

If "value" or "wealth" is ultimately derived from what humans do, and what humans do is eventually replaced by machinery then where is "value" since humans will not be doing anything?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:15 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Bingo. Except you use the word 'philosophy' which has a strictly intellectual intent i.e doesn't necessarily have a practical application. It's more a doctrine.

Nice to see some pragmatists back at this forum.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:19 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

If only we could smash all the cotton gins, we could all get jobs deseeding cotton!

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:27 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Come on, Gene.  Lets see an actual response.  Don't just red arrow all my posts you prick.  You are making the idiotic Luddite argument right now, and you are too damn cowardly to take responsibility for it.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:39 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

You're offended. That's cool. Bluntly Put has a nice example below in case you're interesting in straying from your dogma which you are not, hence that makes you only junk worthy. Barely even that.

Listen, justifying people losing jobs to automated machinery only goes to show the absolute disconnect in your head. It seems you're OK with having humanity become subservient to machines, I am not. If anything, machinery should serve humanity not the other way around. There is no reason for having people lose jobs and under-go retraining because of technology, especially when they are older and close to retirement.

You seriously need to look for some literature outside the Austrian dogma.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:45 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Fine, let's smash all the machines and do everything by hand then.

That is your EXACT argument, and it is as SICKENING as it is IDIOTIC.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Then come back and apologize for being a total moron who advocates the debasement and destruction of the human race.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:55 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

No, the record shows who suggested what. I simply point out the predicament and nothing more. Your logic is simplistic if not dangerously dumb.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:07 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

So, smash the machines, then?

Get to it, Luddite.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:06 | Link to Comment TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

As a monarchist I`d rather pardon a Luddite than any of
today`s socialist progressives.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:29 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

What happens when they are the same people?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:39 | Link to Comment TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Some "social spending" of bullets as in the old days ?

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:56 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

As we become more technologically advanced there will be less work to be done. That is the whole point of efficiency.

The free time can either be used for some other productive project, or navel gazing.

 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 13:57 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Unfortunately, people still need to eat, machines don't. 

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:00 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Farms can be automated like anything else.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Marco
Marco's picture

And those automated farms can rear Wagyu cattle for the people who can afford to eat it ...

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 15:30 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Right, sort of like how automated production lines are only used to make million dollar cars...oh wait they make cars cheaper.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:40 | Link to Comment Marco
Marco's picture

The problem is that there is a hard bottom on the cost of cars (because of peak fucking everything) but no hard bottom on the value of labour ...

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 16:59 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

What the fuck are you talking about?  1000+1=1001  1000+1000=2000  If the former number is the cost of raw materials, and the latter is your labor costs, which price would you rather pay?  What happens to the 999 you saved?  Do you throw it in the toilet?  Or do you buy something else and have a better standard of living?

Good job trying to introduce a handwaving argument as though price of raw materials somehow makes human labor costs negative.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 17:11 | Link to Comment Marco
Marco's picture

I would rather pay the 1001 ... the problem is that the guy getting the 1 will have to save an awfully long time to afford the 1001. There is not even a guarantuee that 1 is enough for subsistence costs, let alone leave him enough to pay the 1001.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 20:50 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

The machinery in the factory allows him to make 1000 cars a week.

Whoops.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:18 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Luddite argument.  You might as well tell me about the underclass of poor, unemployed buggy whip makers and how they have struggled to survive with no income for the last 100 years.

You assume that humans are total idiots who can only do one thing, and can never do anything other than their current job.  There are ALWAYS things for people to do, things for which others are willing to pay them.  Whether it is design of new things to be built by machines, or art, or musical performance, or scientific inquiry.  

Men work to get things, they don't get things so they can work.  If it is so simple to make things with no human labor input, then the supply of those things will increase until they are free, or practically so.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:43 | Link to Comment Bluntly Put
Bluntly Put's picture

I don't assume that humans are total idiots, you assume that I do, assuming then that I am an idiot I suppose.

I just observe. And what I observe is that to have "value" in this system one must attain specialization in a given field. As things become more complex to create or add to the machine it requires more specialization/training for an individual. But that specialization becomes a deterrent to change necessary for inevitable shifts or cycles in the economy. An individual who trains to create self intelligent machinery and has some temporary value or earning potential then finds themselves in a dire situation when the economy either changes or machinery or self intelligent machinery puts them out of work.

Your ideals of people exchanging or finding value in anything humans do such as performing in front of audiences is immature. Art and self expression have found "value" only withing the confines of accumulated wealth, or as a "leisure" to abundance. Abundance comes from excess of human production, if machinery produces there is no abundance to draw from. Your thinking is uber Orwellian.

Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:50 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Your thinking is uber Orwellian.

Not to mention tireless to the point of nausea. Nothing you point out is acknowledged in the slightest manner. All the answers are there, in The Austrian School. You must bow.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!