Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[CultureCitizen]

Free market work better with information .
How is that different from getting the specs of a computer or a refrigerator you are buying ? Huh?

Because I already did my homework when buying a refrigerator or computer on the internet, just as I could do the same about where I eat. The difference is that I don't care what's in my McDonald's food because I know it's not good for you, but I want it anyway.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent while conservatives measure success by results.
Rush Limbaugh

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

You see no harm when your President imposes mandates on businesses for personal reasons and not because the public wants it? Will you say the same thing if we end up with a Republican President that does the same, sort of a fine for people that don't own a firearm?

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect competitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

 

[Jarhead]

If college and healthcare are human rights...why isn't warm clothing......and food.....and shoes......or should the federal government go into those businesses as well.

Indeed , some propose that a basic income to cover all of the above should be a human right.

But the case for education is the strongest one : it allows getting a better job and adquiring new skills when automation shaves jobs from the market, it also makes people more productive.

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

With or without a college education, there is no need for the other 9 employees in the executive offices.

 

[CultureCitizen]

U.S. Uncut ^ | September 27, 2015 | Hugh Wharton
This interview is amazing.As the Bernie Sanders campaign surges, the socialist senator continues to bring the national conversation back from the right after 30 years of bellicose class war rhetoric. In the clip below, he shames those (including Jeb Bush) who would cut taxes for the rich while stripping Social Security. Sanders states clearly that every other industrialized country invests in their own citizens and children and it’s high time that we followed suit. While Sanders is heavily-criticized for identifying as a democratic socialist, he embraces the label. Sanders says countries that abide by the principles of democratic socialism, like...

Free Health Care And Education are a great idea as long as somebody else pays for it. Nobody is willing to pay for the same level of health care they expect for free. And as far as free education, it's great through high school. If college students have to pay for their education they will be serious about learning. We would see a lot less liberal arts degrees and more degrees that graduates can actually get jobs with.

Learning is a continuous process in my area ( IT ) . I usually have to digest a couple of 500+ pages books per year. The greatest skill you can get from a degree is the skill to adquire new skills.
I think that should be the fundamental change in higher education. Also consider higher education will only get cheaper with e-learning. Team work is one of the aspects of higher education which is hard to do with e-learning you still need a classroom for that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because I already did my homework when buying a refrigerator or computer on the internet, just as I could do the same about where I eat. The difference is that I don't care what's in my McDonald's food because I know it's not good for you, but I want it anyway.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent while conservatives measure success by results.
Rush Limbaugh

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

You see no harm when your President imposes mandates on businesses for personal reasons and not because the public wants it? Will you say the same thing if we end up with a Republican President that does the same, sort of a fine for people that don't own a firearm?

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect competitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

 

[Jarhead]

U.S. Uncut ^ | September 27, 2015 | Hugh Wharton
This interview is amazing.As the Bernie Sanders campaign surges, the socialist senator continues to bring the national conversation back from the right after 30 years of bellicose class war rhetoric. In the clip below, he shames those (including Jeb Bush) who would cut taxes for the rich while stripping Social Security. Sanders states clearly that every other industrialized country invests in their own citizens and children and it’s high time that we followed suit. While Sanders is heavily-criticized for identifying as a democratic socialist, he embraces the label. Sanders says countries that abide by the principles of democratic socialism, like...

Free Health Care And Education are a great idea as long as somebody else pays for it. Nobody is willing to pay for the same level of health care they expect for free. And as far as free education, it's great through high school. If college students have to pay for their education they will be serious about learning. We would see a lot less liberal arts degrees and more degrees that graduates can actually get jobs with.

Learning is a continuous process in my area ( IT ) . I usually have to digest a couple of 500+ pages books per year. The greatest skill you can get from a degree is the skill to adquire new skills.
I think that should be the fundamental change in higher education. Also consider higher education will only get cheaper with e-learning. Team work is one of the aspects of higher education which is hard to do with e-learning you still need a classroom for that.

I have retained less than10% of what I learned during my undergraduate years. Of that 10% I apply 1% to everyday life.

And what is that 1%?

I learned how to learn.

It worked for me and that is why I am a 55 year old retiree enjoying life.

 

[CultureCitizen]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

 

[Jarhead]

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

You see no harm when your President imposes mandates on businesses for personal reasons and not because the public wants it? Will you say the same thing if we end up with a Republican President that does the same, sort of a fine for people that don't own a firearm?

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect competitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Pure competition is a basis in economics.....a goal perhaps.....but one that can not be achieved. We look at pure competition as the epitome yet realize at best we will achieve the penultimate.

 

[The Rabbi]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

It is laughable. Labor is a commodity. When a commodity becomes cheap enough there is demand. T here will never be no demand for labor. There will be no demand for labor at gov't mandated min wages though.

 

[Jarhead]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

you and I can discuss this for hours. Do not get me wrong. I have struggled with this for years. The need for labor is coming to an end. Not necessarily in this century....but it is not that far away.

We very well may see people becoming more self sufficient....living off the land and surviving off of their own hard work.

Little house on the prairie revisited.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

You see no harm when your President imposes mandates on businesses for personal reasons and not because the public wants it? Will you say the same thing if we end up with a Republican President that does the same, sort of a fine for people that don't own a firearm?

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect competitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

 

[Jarhead]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

It is laughable. Labor is a commodity. When a commodity becomes cheap enough there is demand. T here will never be no demand for labor. There will be no demand for labor at gov't mandated min wages though.

the need for human labor is decreasing at an increasing rate. This is fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

You see no harm when your President imposes mandates on businesses for personal reasons and not because the public wants it? Will you say the same thing if we end up with a Republican President that does the same, sort of a fine for people that don't own a firearm?

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect competitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

 

[CultureCitizen]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

It is laughable. Labor is a commodity. When a commodity becomes cheap enough there is demand. T here will never be no demand for labor. There will be no demand for labor at gov't mandated min wages though.

No , it is not laughable, this is very serious.
Labour will not cease to exist, but it could go as low as the cost of a robot + maintenance + energy.
Once you scale it a robot should be no more expensive than a compact car and should last for 10 years.

Cost : 10,000
Depreciation ( 10 years ) : 10,000
Maintenance ( 10 years ) : 5,000
Energy ( 10 years) :5,000
Total : 30,000
Yearly : 3,000
Monthly : 250
How does a market price of $250 a month sound for an 10 hour shift sound?

 

[Jarhead]

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect competitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

it isn't and it is not part of the theory of pure competition.....and yes....101 is Macro...theory.

Cost to manufacture, life expectancy of the product, cost of the product, and the same for comparable goods....that is disclosable information in a pure competitive marketplace.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

It is laughable. Labor is a commodity. When a commodity becomes cheap enough there is demand. T here will never be no demand for labor. There will be no demand for labor at gov't mandated min wages though.

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject:

April 16, 2008
Foreign trade angst
By Walter Williams

"There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?


Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction," where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off."

Walter Williams

 

[The Rabbi]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

It is laughable. Labor is a commodity. When a commodity becomes cheap enough there is demand. T here will never be no demand for labor. There will be no demand for labor at gov't mandated min wages though.

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject:

April 16, 2008
Foreign trade angst
By Walter Williams

"There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?


Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction," where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off."

Walter Williams

We saw similar trends in agriculture. In 1800 about 90% of this country were farmers. By 2000 it was like 2%. WHere did all those farm jobs go? To greater efficiency. But the people found new areas to work in.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

Machines have been replacing humans for a long time now.

The candle maker was replaced by electricity.
The ice man was replaced by refrigerators.
The phone operators were replaced by computers.
The coal man was replaced by the natural gas furnace.
The ditch digger was replaced by the backhoe.
The horse shoe maker was replaced by the automobile.

Speaking of service jobs, some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with a nearly all automated restaurant. You push the buttons for what you want, and the machines cook and prepare your food for you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

It is laughable. Labor is a commodity. When a commodity becomes cheap enough there is demand. T here will never be no demand for labor. There will be no demand for labor at gov't mandated min wages though.

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject:

April 16, 2008
Foreign trade angst
By Walter Williams

"There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?


Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction," where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off."

Walter Williams

We saw similar trends in agriculture. In 1800 about 90% of this country were farmers. By 2000 it was like 2%. WHere did all those farm jobs go? To greater efficiency. But the people found new areas to work in.

Well that's the problem today: are there going to be new areas to work in?

 

[Political Junky]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

Machines have been replacing humans for a long time now.

The candle maker was replaced by electricity.
The ice man was replaced by refrigerators.
The phone operators were replaced by computers.
The coal man was replaced by the natural gas furnace.
The ditch differ was replaced by the backhoe.
The horse shoe maker was replaced by the automobile.

Speaking of service jobs, some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with a nearly all automated restaurant. You push the buttons for what you want, and the machines cook and prepare your food for you.

And someday gas and coal will be replaced by alternative fuels.