Jobs , automation , capital

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is no stagnation. You are measuring unlike things.

Ok rabbi , there is not a complete stagnation, but a 6% real growth in 30 years is a really, really slow growth.
Plus, this is the median income. If we break it down by income we get a clearer picture:

Negative growth if you are in the bottom 60% .
Slight growth if you are in the 60-80% range.
Significant growth above that.

Neoconica - America For The New Millennium Zero Hedge

Steve jobs is top 1%. He saw great income growth because he and others like him mastered the new much much larger and more profitable global economy. And thank God too since he and others like him keep the lower classes here employed. If liberals had not attacked the lower classes so much they too probably would have thrived in the new global economy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You're just not getting it here. You're looking at statistical phenomena, not real people.

Let's put it this way:
You have two kids. One is 4', the other is 3'. OK so your household kid height average is 3.5'. The next year the older one is 5', the younger one is 4' but you've had a baby, who is 1.5' long. So now your household kid height average is 3.5. Does that mean that your kids have stagnated in height during the year?? Better see a doctor.
Same thing with wages.

Your example doesn't check with the breakdown.
More likely : you have 5 sons.
Whose height is 1',2',3',4',5' each, but now they measure 0.8' ,1.6' and 2.4' 4.1' and 7'
So yes. Your first 3 sons didn't grow.

Also , in your example the median height is 3.5 the first year and 4 the second year, so your calculations are not correct (the chart says median income, not average income).
Median:
In statistics and probability theory, the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample

 

[The Rabbi]

You're just not getting it here. You're looking at statistical phenomena, not real people.

Let's put it this way:
You have two kids. One is 4', the other is 3'. OK so your household kid height average is 3.5'. The next year the older one is 5', the younger one is 4' but you've had a baby, who is 1.5' long. So now your household kid height average is 3.5. Does that mean that your kids have stagnated in height during the year?? Better see a doctor.
Same thing with wages.

Your example doesn't check with the breakdown.
More likely : you have 5 sons.
Whose height is 1',2',3',4',5' each, but now they measure 0.8' ,1.6' and 2.4' 4.1' and 7'
So yes. Your first 3 sons didn't grow.

Also , in your example the median height is 3.5 the first year and 4 the second year, so your calculations are not correct (the chart says median income, not average income).
Median:
In statistics and probability theory, the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample

OK the first part of your post tells me you arent serious.
The second part tells me you dont understnd what's going on.
Enjoy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You're just not getting it here. You're looking at statistical phenomena, not real people.

Let's put it this way:
You have two kids. One is 4', the other is 3'. OK so your household kid height average is 3.5'. The next year the older one is 5', the younger one is 4' but you've had a baby, who is 1.5' long. So now your household kid height average is 3.5. Does that mean that your kids have stagnated in height during the year?? Better see a doctor.
Same thing with wages.

Your example doesn't check with the breakdown.
More likely : you have 5 sons.
Whose height is 1',2',3',4',5' each, but now they measure 0.8' ,1.6' and 2.4' 4.1' and 7'
So yes. Your first 3 sons didn't grow.

Also , in your example the median height is 3.5 the first year and 4 the second year, so your calculations are not correct (the chart says median income, not average income).
Median:
In statistics and probability theory, the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample

OK the first part of your post tells me you arent serious.
The second part tells me you dont understnd what's going on.
Enjoy.

Your example only works because you have a rather large population increase ( 50% ) and a small growth increase (1/7).
Such would be the case if all new employees started earning a minimum wage and then increased every year their income.
Your example disregards the fact that the "older boy" is growing, while the rest of the boys are shrinking.
Iterate 3 or 4 times more and you'll see the number flipping.
The current model has been iterating for 30 years with no increment for the "youngest" three children.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're just not getting it here. You're looking at statistical phenomena, not real people.

Let's put it this way:
You have two kids. One is 4', the other is 3'. OK so your household kid height average is 3.5'. The next year the older one is 5', the younger one is 4' but you've had a baby, who is 1.5' long. So now your household kid height average is 3.5. Does that mean that your kids have stagnated in height during the year?? Better see a doctor.
Same thing with wages.

Your example doesn't check with the breakdown.
More likely : you have 5 sons.
Whose height is 1',2',3',4',5' each, but now they measure 0.8' ,1.6' and 2.4' 4.1' and 7'
So yes. Your first 3 sons didn't grow.

Also , in your example the median height is 3.5 the first year and 4 the second year, so your calculations are not correct (the chart says median income, not average income).
Median:
In statistics and probability theory, the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample

OK the first part of your post tells me you arent serious.
The second part tells me you dont understnd what's going on.
Enjoy.

Your example only works because you have a rather large population increase ( 50% ) and a small growth increase (1/7).
Such would be the case if all new employees started earning a minimum wage and then increased every year their income.
Your example disregards the fact that the "older boy" is growing, while the rest of the boys are shrinking.
Iterate 3 or 4 times more and you'll see the number flipping.
The current model has been iterating for 30 years with no increment for the "youngest" three children.

The working population has been increasing.
People start their careers earning less and get raises along the way as their skill levels increase.
The rest of your post is gibberish.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're just not getting it here. You're looking at statistical phenomena, not real people.

Let's put it this way:
You have two kids. One is 4', the other is 3'. OK so your household kid height average is 3.5'. The next year the older one is 5', the younger one is 4' but you've had a baby, who is 1.5' long. So now your household kid height average is 3.5. Does that mean that your kids have stagnated in height during the year?? Better see a doctor.
Same thing with wages.

Your example doesn't check with the breakdown.
More likely : you have 5 sons.
Whose height is 1',2',3',4',5' each, but now they measure 0.8' ,1.6' and 2.4' 4.1' and 7'
So yes. Your first 3 sons didn't grow.

Also , in your example the median height is 3.5 the first year and 4 the second year, so your calculations are not correct (the chart says median income, not average income).
Median:
In statistics and probability theory, the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample

OK the first part of your post tells me you arent serious.
The second part tells me you dont understnd what's going on.
Enjoy.

Your example only works because you have a rather large population increase ( 50% ) and a small growth increase (1/7).
Such would be the case if all new employees started earning a minimum wage and then increased every year their income.
Your example disregards the fact that the "older boy" is growing, while the rest of the boys are shrinking.
Iterate 3 or 4 times more and you'll see the number flipping.
The current model has been iterating for 30 years with no increment for the "youngest" three children.

is the culturedcitizen ever going to make an argument to support his OP that the invention of the wheel and computer will someday lead to a net loss of jobs??

 

[CultureCitizen]

The working population has been increasing.
People start their careers earning less and get raises along the way as their skill levels increase.
The rest of your post is gibberish.

What are shameful are your misconceptions of proportion and ratio.
If your population (child count) is growing faster than the sum of salaries ( child heights) you will not get an average increase.

In the US, the population growth is of 2% , so if the wages increased above 2% every year this would be reflected as an increase in the median and average wage, even if every single new employee started with a minimum wage salary.

If your example is repeated two more times you start getting an average increase with the 5th child.

Iteration 0 Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration3
child 5 1.5
child 4 1.5 2
child 3 1.5 2 2.5
child 2 3 3.5 4 4.5
child 1 4 4.5 5 5.5

Height sum 7 9.5 12.5 16
Child count 2 3 4 5
Average 3.50 3.17 3.13 3.20
Height increase 35.71% 31.58% 28.00%
Pop increase 50.00% 33.33% 25.00%

So why did the average drop ? Because population increased by 50% while total height increased by 35%.

 

[The Rabbi]

The working population has been increasing.
People start their careers earning less and get raises along the way as their skill levels increase.
The rest of your post is gibberish.

What are shameful are your misconceptions of proportion and ratio.
If your population (child count) is growing faster than the sum of salaries ( child heights) you will not get an average increase.

In the US, the population growth is of 2% , so if the wages increased above 2% every year this would be reflected as an increase in the median and average wage, even if every single new employee started with a minimum wage salary.

If your example is repeated two more times you start getting an average increase with the 5th child.

Iteration 0 Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration3
child 5 1.5
child 4 1.5 2
child 3 1.5 2 2.5
child 2 3 3.5 4 4.5
child 1 4 4.5 5 5.5

Height sum 7 9.5 12.5 16
Child count 2 3 4 5
Average 3.50 3.17 3.13 3.20
Height increase 35.71% 31.58% 28.00%
Pop increase 50.00% 33.33% 25.00%

So why did the average drop ? Because population increased by 50% while total height increased by 35%.

I'm sorry you can't math. Not my problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The working population has been increasing.
People start their careers earning less and get raises along the way as their skill levels increase.
The rest of your post is gibberish.

What are shameful are your misconceptions of proportion and ratio.
If your population (child count) is growing faster than the sum of salaries ( child heights) you will not get an average increase.

In the US, the population growth is of 2% , so if the wages increased above 2% every year this would be reflected as an increase in the median and average wage, even if every single new employee started with a minimum wage salary.

If your example is repeated two more times you start getting an average increase with the 5th child.

Iteration 0 Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration3
child 5 1.5
child 4 1.5 2
child 3 1.5 2 2.5
child 2 3 3.5 4 4.5
child 1 4 4.5 5 5.5

Height sum 7 9.5 12.5 16
Child count 2 3 4 5
Average 3.50 3.17 3.13 3.20
Height increase 35.71% 31.58% 28.00%
Pop increase 50.00% 33.33% 25.00%

So why did the average drop ? Because population increased by 50% while total height increased by 35%.

silly gibberish to avoid confronting the liberal ignorance contained in the op!!
Is the "culturedcitizen" ever going to make an argument to support his OP that the invention of the wheel and computer will someday lead to a net loss of jobs??

 

[chikenwing]

You're not listening. The automation trend started in the early 1960s. Yet unemployment varied up and down over the next 30 years. It was a slow process but there wasnt massive unemployment as a result.

And yet salaries have stagnated over the past 30 years. Automation is not to be blamed for this situation completely, other factors, as job offshoring and illegal immigration have played their fair share in this situation.

Now , my opinion on what may happen:
Simple manual jobs will cease to exist, as well as some which require specialized skills . Some others, related to education , entertainment, healthcare , prostitution, arts , r&d, and strategic planning will remain.
Education will become a must to get a job (luckily most upper education will be almost free and available online). People with no qualifications will live on food stamps.

We will always ned people to dig ditches,that will not change.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're not listening. The automation trend started in the early 1960s. Yet unemployment varied up and down over the next 30 years. It was a slow process but there wasnt massive unemployment as a result.

And yet salaries have stagnated over the past 30 years. Automation is not to be blamed for this situation completely, other factors, as job offshoring and illegal immigration have played their fair share in this situation.

Now , my opinion on what may happen:
Simple manual jobs will cease to exist, as well as some which require specialized skills . Some others, related to education , entertainment, healthcare , prostitution, arts , r&d, and strategic planning will remain.
Education will become a must to get a job (luckily most upper education will be almost free and available online). People with no qualifications will live on food stamps.

We will always ned people to dig ditches,that will not change.

well it has changed a lot. Today one power shovel can do the work of 1000 men.

 

[CultureCitizen]

silly gibberish to avoid confronting the liberal ignorance contained in the op!!
Is the "culturedcitizen" ever going to make an argument to support his OP that the invention of the wheel and computer will someday lead to a net loss of jobs??

That's not what the openning post says. Read it again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

silly gibberish to avoid confronting the liberal ignorance contained in the op!!
Is the "culturedcitizen" ever going to make an argument to support his OP that the invention of the wheel and computer will someday lead to a net loss of jobs??

That's not what the openning post says. Read it again.

dear, it says "no labor to produce goods and services". The wheel eliminated billions of jobs and yet almost everyone on earth is still employed.

What does that teach you?

Also, do you have any idea about the brainwashing process that made you a liberal?

 

[CultureCitizen]

silly gibberish to avoid confronting the liberal ignorance contained in the op!!
Is the "culturedcitizen" ever going to make an argument to support his OP that the invention of the wheel and computer will someday lead to a net loss of jobs??

That's not what the openning post says. Read it again.

dear, it says "no labor to produce goods and services". The wheel eliminated billions of jobs and yet almost everyone on earth is still employed.

What does that teach you?

Also, do you have any idea about the brainwashing process that made you a liberal?

I'll have to quote my self :

How does a model where no labour ( or very little labour ) is required to produce goods and services ?
How would such an economy work?
How would this affect the circular economic model ?

There you go... and please , notice the question marks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

silly gibberish to avoid confronting the liberal ignorance contained in the op!!
Is the "culturedcitizen" ever going to make an argument to support his OP that the invention of the wheel and computer will someday lead to a net loss of jobs??

That's not what the openning post says. Read it again.

dear, it says "no labor to produce goods and services". The wheel eliminated billions of jobs and yet almost everyone on earth is still employed.

What does that teach you?

Also, do you have any idea about the brainwashing process that made you a liberal?

I'll have to quote my self :

How does a model where no labour ( or very little labour ) is required to produce goods and services ?
How would such an economy work?
How would this affect the circular economic model ?

There you go.

as I said the wheel put billions out of work so what is the issue about new inventions????? Can you say??

 

[CultureCitizen]

silly gibberish to avoid confronting the liberal ignorance contained in the op!!
Is the "culturedcitizen" ever going to make an argument to support his OP that the invention of the wheel and computer will someday lead to a net loss of jobs??

That's not what the openning post says. Read it again.

dear, it says "no labor to produce goods and services". The wheel eliminated billions of jobs and yet almost everyone on earth is still employed.

What does that teach you?

Also, do you have any idea about the brainwashing process that made you a liberal?

I'll have to quote my self :

How does a model where no labour ( or very little labour ) is required to produce goods and services ?
How would such an economy work?
How would this affect the circular economic model ?

There you go.

as I said the wheel put billions out of work so what is the issue about new inventions????? Can you say??

There are some differences. For a moment let's assume that most unskilled work is no longer "required".
True, there will allways be a price in which a person is cheaper than a machine ( machine cost + maintenance cost + energy cost ) / machine_productivity. But this price might be too low for someone to accept the job ( e.g if the transportation costs are equal or higher than the job income ).

The new jobs will probably require some sort of higher education, which creates the challenge of having a highly educated society.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are some differences. For a moment let's assume that most unskilled work is no longer "required".

why would the liberal assume that when Foxconn is hiring unskilled work by the 100's of thousands 10,000 years after the wheel was invented?

More importantly do you know why you are a liberal?

 

[bripat9643]

totally 100% stupid and liberal as always. The guy who invented the wheel put billions out of work but we still have full employment? How can that be?

Who exactly has full employment Baiamonte ?

What does that prove? Countries have unemployment because of their government's fucked up economic policies, not because of automation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

totally 100% stupid and liberal as always. The guy who invented the wheel put billions out of work but we still have full employment? How can that be?

Who exactly has full employment Baiamonte ?

What does that prove? Countries have unemployment because of their government's fucked up economic policies, not because of automation.

Liberals oppose the wheel and automation because both take jobs. Without a law making it illegal for liberals to participate in our democracy there is no hope.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Liberals oppose the wheel and automation because both take jobs. Without a law making it illegal for liberals to participate in our democracy there is no hope.

No , not really . It seems you're not even bothering to read my posts.
Have it your way.