So you want better paying jobs?

[Boss]

. That's not saying that new technology doesn't ever create better paying jobs.

dear, new technology is what got us from the stone age to here!!!!! OMG!!!!

OMG!! I'm not claiming otherwise! OMG!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. That's not saying that new technology doesn't ever create better paying jobs.

dear, new technology is what got us from the stone age to here!!!!! OMG!!!!

OMG!! I'm not claiming otherwise! OMG!!

why not say what you are claiming????

 

[Boss]

. That's not saying that new technology doesn't ever create better paying jobs.

dear, new technology is what got us from the stone age to here!!!!! OMG!!!!

OMG!! I'm not claiming otherwise! OMG!!

why not say what you are claiming????

Well, I thought that is what I did in the OP... did you not read it?

New technology is fine but it's not how you get to better paying jobs. Because technology and wages have increased, doesn't mean that one is responsible for the other. Better paying jobs are the result of demand for labor. We see this exhibited in areas like nursing where there is a nationwide shortage of qualified nurses. Now, there is some new technology surrounding nursing but that's not why nurses get paid so much. It's because they are hard to find. Lots of competition is willing to pay them well to come to work. A hospital cannot get by without nurses.

There are a lot of examples like this but the point is the same... supply and demand are what determines higher wages. There is not any way around that, it's a principle that is the foundation of modern free market capitalism. Government trying to enforce mandatory minimums only serves to drive prices higher and eliminate low-skill jobs. I think you agree with that but somehow you want to argue with me over this stupid idea that technology drives wages when it doesn't. The "Green Technology" is a PRIME example. Just because the technology is there doesn't mean there is a market for it. Supply of this technology is unimportant without a demand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

New technology is fine but it's not how you get to better paying jobs.

Of course that is stupid. Without new technology we'd all be dirt poor dirt farmers living at subsistence at best. Now we are all rich thanks 100% to the new technology.

 

[Boss]

New technology is fine but it's not how you get to better paying jobs.

Of course that is stupid. Without new technology we'd all be dirt poor dirt farmers living at subsistence at best. Now we are all rich thanks 100% to the new technology.

Well, you can think it's stupid all you like... I just gave you a prime example. I understand technology is a good thing and brings good things to life. I've not disputed that technology is good and it sometimes creates better paying jobs... but sometimes it eliminates jobs... sometimes it creates lower paying jobs. All of this is dependent on what kind of technology, demand for the technology in the market and what the technology might involve. There's no set in stone rule, like I said.

I don't understand what you mean by "we're all rich!" We most certainly are NOT all rich. Some of us are still dirt farmers, as a matter of fact. You're starting to sound like a goddamn moron, to be honest. I hate to say that because I generally find your posts to be better reasoned. But dude.... We're all rich? Are you on crack?

If you are a free market capitalist who understands the principles of free market capitalism, you have to understand the thing that creates better paying jobs is more demand for labor. When there is more demand than supply, wages go up. Sometimes, that might just be the result of a new technology... not many people know how to do underwater plasma welding... so those jobs pay more than average.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've not disputed that technology is good and it sometimes creates better paying jobs..

sometimes?????????????????????????????????????????
every new job since the stone age was created by new technology!!! We are far far richer than in the stone age because technology, like the farm plow, makes us better or more efficient workers!

A child could grasp this.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.. We're all rich? Are you on crack?

Yes dear, we are all rich compared to 100 years ago thanks to Republican capitalism and the new technology it created

 

[Boss]

Again, it is NOT the technology, it is capitalism and free market principles of supply and demand. Technology is pointless if there is no market demand for it. We have the technology today to render power companies obsolete. You could put a small nuclear reactor in every city and supply power from now on... there is no market for this because of safety concerns, but the technology is there. We could have nuclear-powered cars and never buy another drop of oil... again, the technology is there.... what's missing is the demand for the technology.

Yes, you can follow the advance of technology all throughout the history of man and we do make more money now than ever before... doesn't mean those two things correlate. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I've given examples both ways and still you insist on arguing. This is not debatable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Technology is pointless if there is no market demand for it.

100% stupid since we don't develop technology unless there is demand for it. The law of supply and demand assumes there is both supply and demand that are adjusted only by price. If you had studied Econ 101 you'd know that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You could put a small nuclear reactor in every city and supply power from now on..

100% stupid!! the technology to do it safely does not exist so there is no demand for it at any price.

 

[Boss]

Technology is pointless if there is no market demand for it.

100% stupid since we don't develop technology unless there is demand for it. The law of supply and demand assumes there is both supply and demand that are adjusted only by price. If you had studied Econ 101 you'd know that.

LMAO... We develop technology ALL THE TIME that there is not a demand for! We have the technology (already developed) to colonize Mars! Are we DOING it? Is there a DEMAND?

You must be 1000% stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We have the technology (already developed) to colonize Mars! .

as I said in Econ 101 the law of supply and demand is assumed to exist and to be adjusted by price only . Mars would not fit within the context of supply and demand discussions since, 1) govt would buy it without the usual free market concern for price and 2) it is so expensive that no one has bothered to develop a supply even for govt, let alone the free market.

Now do you understand?

 

[Boss]

We have the technology (already developed) to colonize Mars! .

as I said in Econ 101 the law of supply and demand is assumed to exist and to be adjusted by price only . Mars would not fit within the context of supply and demand discussions since, 1) govt would buy it without the usual free market concern for price and 2) it is so expensive that no one has bothered to develop a supply even for govt, let alone the free market.

Now do you understand?

That doesn't even make any sense... was that possibly Keynesian Econ 101?

You said that technology is not developed unless there is a demand. Now you are trying to say there must first be a demand and then technology is developed or that demand is assumed if technology is developed. We develop technology constantly. It doesn't mean there is a demand for the technology we develop.

The first hybrid car was technologically developed in 1972... it wasn't until 26 years later it became a marketable technology. I can go down a list of such technologies if you like. However, if you're going to take my examples and then apply "supply and demand" to them... then you are making MY argument, not YOURS!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The first hybrid car was technologically developed in 1972..

you're being stupid, they had battery cars 100 years ago and the idea for them 2000 years ago. Technology to an economist is considered meaningfully developed when there is a market place for it.

Got it now?

 

[Boss]

The first hybrid car was technologically developed in 1972..

you're being stupid, they had battery cars 100 years ago and the idea for them 2000 years ago. Technology to an economist is considered meaningfully developed when there is a market place for it.

Got it now?

Yes, it's called supply and demand... that was MY point.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The first hybrid car was technologically developed in 1972..

you're being stupid, they had battery cars 100 years ago and the idea for them 2000 years ago. Technology to an economist is considered meaningfully developed when there is a market place for it.

Got it now?

Yes, it's called supply and demand... that was MY point.

?????????????

 

[Boss]

The first hybrid car was technologically developed in 1972..

you're being stupid, they had battery cars 100 years ago and the idea for them 2000 years ago. Technology to an economist is considered meaningfully developed when there is a market place for it.

Got it now?

Victor Wouk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The first hybrid car was technologically developed in 1972..

you're being stupid, they had battery cars 100 years ago and the idea for them 2000 years ago. Technology to an economist is considered meaningfully developed when there is a market place for it.

Got it now?

Victor Wouk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

??????????

 

[Boss]

The first hybrid car was technologically developed in 1972..

you're being stupid, they had battery cars 100 years ago and the idea for them 2000 years ago. Technology to an economist is considered meaningfully developed when there is a market place for it.

Got it now?

Yes, it's called supply and demand... that was MY point.

?????????????

What are you throwing me question marks for? Confused because you refuted your own argument?

As you pointed out, electric car technology was invented 100 years ago... why was it 1992 before the Toyota Prius rolled off the assembly line into the marketplace? I thought demand was assumed when technology was invented?

"100% stupid since we don't develop technology unless there is demand for it." - YOU

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I thought demand was assumed when technology was invented?

no dear I said an economist does not consider technology meaningfully invented in terms of supply and demand until both are directly influenced by price. So an electric car imagined 100 years would not be a meaningful economic event since then there was no market supply, no market demand , and no market price.