The Elephant in the Room

[AmazonTania]

You do seem to have a lot of time to spend on the forum. Not unemployed are you?

First you attack me as an individual, and then you attack my lifestyle. If you must know, I am not unemployed. But don't let the sheer fact that I make more money sitting on my ass for 10 hours a day than mostly all the regulars on this forum mystify you. It just means that what I do is very valuable and there is absolutely zero threat of automation taking over my job.

If you were as good with your assumptions as you were with the discussion matter, this would probably go easier for you.



In what way was Obama right? ATM's have not and are not replacing bank tellers in any way. Automated bank vaults never eliminated the need for armed security in banks. There are more jobs being created to replace the ones already lost as a result of automation. Vault guards can now go on and perform other security task instead.

My iPhone eliminated the need for my secretary. Now she can go off and preform other task in which her skills are required.



You don't seem to understand what you are looking at. The first decline in manufacturing was due to the transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy. It has nothing to do with the increase in the information sector. Job growth in the manufacturing sector Y/Y has an annualised rate of 1.3%, while the information sector has lost jobs at an annualised rate of -1.2% Y.Y. There are plenty of new technological developments for the manufacturing sector to transition to. There is no short far of manufacturing jobs due to automation. The growth in the manufacturing sector is outpacing the information sector, and there is still more to go.

A good portion of US exports are computer and electronic products. The increase in automation can easily correct the void left from failing, obsolete economic sectors.



Meaningless platitudes are meaningless. As economies grow, a once dominating industry shrinks more and more. Agriculture was once a dominating sector of the US economy, and of great importance to the economy. Now, Agriculture is less than 2% of the economy. The economy became more industrial oriented towards the end of the industrial revolution. Now the goods producing sector is 19% of the economy. As the economy becomes more efficient, it creates more output with fewer resources, including human labour.

There are no changes in trends. The only changes in trends are the times. Automation is creating more opportunities for developers, manufacturers, engineers as well as the average employee who utilises this technology. If you are entering today's economy and you have very little to no computer skills, then you virtually have zero chance of being employed. Absolutely no one is going to lower their standards just to make you feel better.



You have it backwards. A middle class is created as a result of a growing economy. Not the other way around. We can pinpoint many jobs which use to exist in this economy before, and trace it towards a regulation in the Federal Register around the same year. It's really not that hard.

According to the National Federation of Small Business, Government Regulations and Rep Tap are the largest concern small businesses face next to taxes. Why do you think in a poor economic climate such as this, the third most important concern for small businesses are poor sales?

These are real wages:

And these are real wages in the past 30 years:

Now that we've gotten that talking point out of the way, you should know that Unit Labour Cost is indexed at a base period, which means real wages are being compared to real overall output. That is essentially how unit labour cost is measured. Unit Labour cost in the business sector is increasing, which means wages are outpacing productivity, not the other way around.



Still not tired of these meaningless platitudes, I see. The entire nation benefits from the use in automation, not just at the top. Automation makes our lives easier. If you'd rather live like you're in the stone-age, there are plenty of countries I can recommend.

So, more of Tania's graphs. What if we look at what those with the resources to look at the subject and who produce impartial results say:





And in the above, there are many more charts than tania has.

During the 1973 to 2011 period, labor productivity rose 80.4 percent but real median hourly wage increased 4.0 percent, and the real median hourly compensation (including all wages and benefits) increased just 10.7 percent. ... If the real median hourly compensation had grown at the same rate as labor productivity over the period, it would have been $32.61 in 2011 (2011 dollars), considerably more than the actual $20.01 (2011 dollars).
Economist's View: The Wedge between Productivity and Wages

Real hourly compensation growth failed to keep pace with accelerating productivity growth over the past three decades, and the gap between productivity growth and compensation growth widened.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/01/art3full.pdf

And on, and on, and on. Where did you get your data, Tania. Because I can find no impartial source that agrees. Perhaps a link???

Economic Research - St. Louis Fed

 

[Rshermr]

Explain this graph:





Your wages graph show real wages, according to what you say they are, increasing a great deal from 2000 to 2012. My source says wages went from about $600 to $612 per week. So, somehow I do not find your graph convincing. If you look at any of the data in the sources I provided you, all say that in the last approx. 40 years, wages and benefits increased by as much as 10% to 11% fro 1973. Not 2000, but 1973. Over 10% in 12 years by your graph, about 1% by the graph I provided.
Something is very, very wrong with your graphs, me dear.

 

[AmazonTania]

The process of automation has been going on for centuries and constitutes the main reason for increasing living standards. It simply is not feasible to attempt to support current living standards with old technology. Part of this increased productivity has been used to shorten the work week, make jobs safer, and generally improve working conditions. From this standpoint automation has been both inevitable and admirable.

This is why more automation should be encouraged. If I could have a android complete my responses for me, that would be an awesome thing. I really like the idea of not talking to most of the people here. On the plus side, I can concentrate on whatever else I was doing.

In another thread I referenced a recent paper (damn! I'm getting a lot of mileage out of that paper!) that defined "recovery" as part of the business cycle and noted a change about 1980 that showed recoveries becoming more problematic. I'm not sure if office computerization has much to do with this (coincidences happen), but it might be a case where automation has caused changes in the office workforce similar to the role of computer assisted technology in manufacturing. Either way, I expect that information technology and manufacturing will both decline as shares of the labor force over time. The real question is what kind of jobs will grow as they diminish.

I've already done the same thing in a chart form:

As for what kind of jobs will grow to replace information and manufacturing. I am predicting mostly health and medical jobs.

This has been a big argument by business for about a century. Labor laws increase the cost of labor. But the argument cuts in unexpected ways. Nations with national health insurance, like Switzerland, do not have health insurance costs as part of their prime labor cost, so at the margin they can be more competitive. If everything becomes a race to the bottom in terms of labor cost using compensation as the only tool, it's going to be a grim future, one that is dominated by nations that keep compensation high and increase productivity. In the long run, a nation can only consume as much as it produces, so the focus should be maniacally directed at increasing productivity.

The cost of labour is more than just the wages you pay your employers. It also involves the cost of compliance, the taxes and many other indirect costs. There are many compliance cost involved depending upon the sector or industry. And there are costs which are related to the amount of employees a business has. These costs are always absorbed at the top-down, but it essentially makes hiring more employees unprofitable.

The only way I can interpret your remarks here is that you do not believe the published figures on compensation and productivity. Real wages are in a 30+ year decline, labor productivity has increased over that time with essentially none of the benefit accruing to labor. Am I missing something here?

Incorrect, these are exactly the types of figures I am looking at. Productivity has an aggregate is increasing, but that's really only due to sectors which utilises technology. The cashier at Starbucks is using a cash register with more computing power than what was used to put a man on the moon. Now while I think this is great, all this has really done was decrease the time it takes for this cashier to get my order wrong.

Here is Unit Labour Cost for the Business Sector

And here is Unit Labour Cost for the Accommodation and Food Service Industry. For whatever reason the FRED doesn't have the graphs for this industry, so I got this directly from the source:

These sectors are generally rising, as increase in wages has outpaced productivity. As I understand it, most people compare falling wages to the minimum wage. If you are comparing the real hourly wages of the past to the real hourly wages of the present, then I can see how real wages have fallen. I don't see this trend in the business sector. Well, barely anyway.

 

[AmazonTania]

Explain this graph:



View attachment 27377

Your wages graph show real wages, according to what you say they are, nearly doubling from 2000 to 2012. My souce says wages went from about $600 to $612 per week. So, somehow I do not find your graph convincing. If you look at any of the data in the sources I provided you, all say that in the last approx. 40 years, wages and benefits increased by as much as 10%. Something is very, very wrong with your graphs, me dear.

All I did was divide Compensation of Employees: Wages and Accruals with the GDP Deflator and multiplied by 100. This adjust for inflation. My graph presents wages on an aggregate while yours presents it on a weekly basis. That's where the big difference lies. Although I don't know how the data for that graph was compiled. I wasn't aware the BLS kept average weekly earnings going as far back as 1960.

Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted

Regardless, anyone can go into the BLS statistics and compare the productivity with real hourly wages. At the moment, I'm not going to do that because I'm too lazy to make my own graphs.

As an aggregate, you will find that productivity has outpaced wages. If you look industry by industry, you will find some sectors where wages are outpacing productivity. Mostly in low skilled employment such as fast food.

 

[Rshermr]

So, I looked at your graph. I then tried to find it on your link. Perhaps it is there, but I am not going to take the time to find it. Here is the most common and widely accepted data on wages and productivity. Straight from the Economic Policy Institute. And these numbers do not agree with your graph at all. And no independent source that I can find has numbers ANYTHING like yours. So, I think I will accept the data on the graph I am providing here. It is not mine. It is done by a group without agenda.



This graph shows that productivity and wages remained very close until the mid 1970's. Then it shows productivity increasing much faster than wages, and increasingly so, until today. The graph you have would have us believe that wages have been well above productivity always, until they came together in about 2007. One is absolutly wrong.

I have seen enough of these charts to know that what the graph I provided say is very close to right on. What is going on with your chart is beyond me, but I suspect it is perhaps PART of the economy, not all of it. And I know you know we are not talking about sectors.
A couple of posts ago, I provided you with these links:

Quote:
A bigger share of what businesses in the U.S. are producing is going to the owners of the firms and the people who lent money to the firm, and a smaller share is going to workers," Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution, told CNN in a report published Thursday.
US Worker Productivity Is Rising Faster Than Wage Growth
Quote:
Productivity, which measures the goods and services generated per hour worked, rose by 80.4% between 1973 and 2011, compared to a 10.7% growth in median hourly compensation...
Workers don't share in companies' productivity gains - Mar. 7, 2013
Quote:
We've got eleven charts that show how the superrich spoil it for the rest of us. ... Productivity has surged, but income and wages have stagnated for most ...
Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil | Mother Jones


Quote:
During the 1973 to 2011 period, labor productivity rose 80.4 percent but real median hourly wage increased 4.0 percent, and the real median hourly compensation (including all wages and benefits) increased just 10.7 percent. ... If the real median hourly compensation had grown at the same rate as labor productivity over the period, it would have been $32.61 in 2011 (2011 dollars), considerably more than the actual $20.01 (2011 dollars).
Economist's View: The Wedge between Productivity and Wages

Quote:
Real hourly compensation growth failed to keep pace with accelerating productivity growth over the past three decades, and the gap between productivity growth and compensation growth widened.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/01/art3full.pdf

All of these links, and the above chart, show your chart is WRONG. What is the deal, Tania. How about a link directly to the chart. I would like to see the metadata.

 

[Auteur]

In what way was Obama right? ATM's have not and are not replacing bank tellers in any way. Automated bank vaults never eliminated the need for armed security in banks. There are more jobs being created to replace the ones already lost as a result of automation. Vault guards can now go on and perform other security task instead.

My iPhone eliminated the need for my secretary. Now she can go off and preform other task in which her skills are required.

Give me a break AT. Banks used to be beehives of clerks and tellers and others working away over ledgers. Today we have a bank of machines, a receptionist, and a handful of tellers who mostly cater to those old enough that they are uncomfortable with ATMs, or to those with special issues. Security? Yes, so far that is still a big employer, although even here automation has made vast leaps. That magnetic strip on your drivers license or ID card? Yep, a lot of info there if required by law enforcement. CC cameras? You'll see them in lots of places, and they sure save on manpower.

You don't seem to understand what you are looking at. The first decline in manufacturing was due to the transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy. It has nothing to do with the increase in the information sector. Job growth in the manufacturing sector Y/Y has an annualised rate of 1.3%, while the information sector has lost jobs at an annualised rate of -1.2% Y.Y. There are plenty of new technological developments for the manufacturing sector to transition to. There is no short far of manufacturing jobs due to automation. The growth in the manufacturing sector is outpacing the information sector, and there is still more to go.

You are talking around in circles here. Your graph shows both manufacturing and "information" jobs falling since 2000, and making only a tepid recovery in the last year or so. Some manufacturing may well return to the US, and other western countries, if that is what you are getting at, but it will be computer intensive, not labour intensive.

A good portion of US exports are computer and electronic products. The increase in automation can easily correct the void left from failing, obsolete economic sectors.

If this sector is "corrected" it will be due to the increased productivity of advanced automation. This means minimal jobs.

Meaningless platitudes are meaningless. As economies grow, a once dominating industry shrinks more and more. Agriculture was once a dominating sector of the US economy, and of great importance to the economy. Now, Agriculture is less than 2% of the economy. The economy became more industrial oriented towards the end of the industrial revolution. Now the goods producing sector is 19% of the economy. As the economy becomes more efficient, it creates more output with fewer resources, including human labour.

There are no changes in trends. The only changes in trends are the times. Automation is creating more opportunities for developers, manufacturers, engineers as well as the average employee who utilises this technology. If you are entering today's economy and you have very little to no computer skills, then you virtually have zero chance of being employed. Absolutely no one is going to lower their standards just to make you feel better.

We are going round and around the mulberry bush. You are again summarizing the sort of thing many boys and girls are reading in their high school texts as we converse here, I'm sure. History does not always follow straight lines. If indeed the increase in AI and automation describes an exponential curve rather than a linear one, then we are in for a shift in history. And the evidence to date is that many middle class jobs are disappearing, and those formerly employed there often find themselves now at the bottom end, as perhaps one of your minimum wage bank guards. If the automated Google car ever reaches widespread use, one of the last large scale sources of employment will disappear. We are approaching the time when a reevaluation of work and its place in society will be required.

You have it backwards. A middle class is created as a result of a growing economy. Not the other way around. We can pinpoint many jobs which use to exist in this economy before, and trace it towards a regulation in the Federal Register around the same year. It's really not that hard.

According to the National Federation of Small Business, Government Regulations and Rep Tap are the largest concern small businesses face next to taxes. Why do you think in a poor economic climate such as this, the third most important concern for small businesses are poor sales?

No, you have it backwards. The middle class is the result of a century and a half of labour battles. A country can see admirable growth over a long period, but how such gains are distributed are ultimately political and social questions. Britain saw tremendous growth as one of the first to industrialize, but also had extreme wealth polarization, until such time as social pressures brought change. China has seen rapid growth in recent years, but has an impoverished work force. They will have a middle class, or at least a larger one, when the powers that be say they will.

As for your small businesses, you are asking carpenters whether you house needs some wood work.

Have no idea what you are talking about here, as real wages have declined over the last few decades, even as productivity has increased. And this is exactly my point.

These are real wages:

And these are real wages in the past 30 years:

Now that we've gotten that talking point out of the way, you should know that Unit Labour Cost is indexed at a base period, which means real wages are being compared to real overall output. That is essentially how unit labour cost is measured. Unit Labour cost in the business sector is increasing, which means wages are outpacing productivity, not the other way around.

Hmmm. Noted, Nobel Prize winning economists, such as Paul Krugman, or Joseph Stiglitz would disagree with you. Are you going to given them an economics lesson too?

Overall, society is reaping the benefits of automation. But how will those benefits be distributed? Because right now, it is essentially all going to the top, recreating the chaotic 19th century for our children. Some tough political choices are going to have to be made here, or conflict will occur in the future.

Still not tired of these meaningless platitudes, I see. The entire nation benefits from the use in automation, not just at the top. Automation makes our lives easier. If you'd rather live like you're in the stone-age, there are plenty of countries I can recommend.

You reading comprehension is getting a little fuzzy AT. I didn't say I was against automation. I said that it was raising important and unprecedented issues that society was going to have to manage. Refusing to believe anything will change is not going to help.

 

[Rshermr]

Tania says:

According to the National Federation of Small Business, Government Regulations and Rep Tap are the largest concern small businesses face next to taxes. Why do you think in a poor economic climate such as this, the third most important concern for small businesses are poor sales?

Got a link??? I would like to see this information. And, it is a bit odd that I can not find the organization with a google search. Are you sure it exists??

Every survey of small business I have seen say sales revenue is the number one issue. Something must have really changed. Or.......

 

[AmazonTania]

So, I looked at your graph. I then tried to find it on your link. Perhaps it is there, but I am not going to take the time to find it. Here is the most common and widely accepted data on wages and productivity. Straight from the Economic Policy Institute. And these numbers do not agree with your graph at all. And no independent source that I can find has numbers ANYTHING like yours. So, I think I will accept the data on the graph I am providing here. It is not mine. It is done by a group without agenda.

This graph shows that productivity and wages remained very close until the mid 1970's. Then it shows productivity increasing much faster than wages, and increasingly so, until today. The graph you have would have us believe that wages have been well above productivity always, until they came together in about 2007. One is absolutly wrong.

The reason why you can't find the chart is because (1) you simply are not researching the charts and (2) you do not understand the data presented to you. And but the looks of things, you don't understand the data displayed in your own chart.

The only thing which might be different regarding our charts is the actual data being used. I've used Nonfarm Business Sector data and your chart uses Non supervisory hourly earnings and output. When you actually take the time to look, the chart you are showing uses a index base year as well. Index base year is just another way of showing the percent increase per year. By the looks of the chart you have show, it looks like the base year is around 1980.

Looks familiar? Real employee wages relative to productivity are being measured using a 1980 index, while the data I was using was being measured in a 2009 index. The earlier the base year, the bigger the gap will be.

How the data is presented matters just as much as the type of data actually was being used.

I have seen enough of these charts to know that what the graph I provided say is very close to right on. What is going on with your chart is beyond me, but I suspect it is perhaps PART of the economy, not all of it. And I know you know we are not talking about sectors.

Brilliant. How did you know?

All of these links, and the above chart, show your chart is WRONG. What is the deal, Tania. How about a link directly to the chart. I would like to see the metadata.

There is nothing wrong with my data. It's just presented in a different way. Depending upon where the base period is, there must be a divergence between the real wages and productivity. After the base period, either real wages or productivity can outpace one another. But basically the earlier the base period, the greater the gap will be.

Here are real wages and output with Index 2009 = 100

Here are real wages and output with Index 1981 = 100

And here are the pages for each. I wouldn't be so concerned about the metadata if I were you. I'd take this as an opportunity to brush up on your research.

FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

 

[AmazonTania]

Tania says:

According to the National Federation of Small Business, Government Regulations and Rep Tap are the largest concern small businesses face next to taxes. Why do you think in a poor economic climate such as this, the third most important concern for small businesses are poor sales?

Got a link??? I would like to see this information. And, it is a bit odd that I can not find the organization with a google search. Are you sure it exists??

I found it with no problem. Maybe you should check your ISP.

Every survey of small business I have seen say sales revenue is the number one issue. Something must have really changed. Or.......

Good for you.

 

[Rshermr]

So, I looked at your graph. I then tried to find it on your link. Perhaps it is there, but I am not going to take the time to find it. Here is the most common and widely accepted data on wages and productivity. Straight from the Economic Policy Institute. And these numbers do not agree with your graph at all. And no independent source that I can find has numbers ANYTHING like yours. So, I think I will accept the data on the graph I am providing here. It is not mine. It is done by a group without agenda.

This graph shows that productivity and wages remained very close until the mid 1970's. Then it shows productivity increasing much faster than wages, and increasingly so, until today. The graph you have would have us believe that wages have been well above productivity always, until they came together in about 2007. One is absolutly wrong.

The reason why you can't find the chart is because (1) you simply are not researching the charts and (2) you do not understand the data presented to you. And but the looks of things, you don't understand the data displayed in your own chart.

The only thing which might be different regarding our charts is the actual data being used. I've used Nonfarm Business Sector data and your chart uses Non supervisory hourly earnings and output. When you actually take the time to look, the chart you are showing uses a index base year as well. Index base year is just another way of showing the percent increase per year. By the looks of the chart you have show, it looks like the base year is around 1980.

Looks familiar? Real employee wages relative to productivity are being measured using a 1980 index, while the data I was using was being measured in a 2009 index. The earlier the base year, the bigger the gap will be.

How the data is presented matters just as much as the type of data actually was being used.

I have seen enough of these charts to know that what the graph I provided say is very close to right on. What is going on with your chart is beyond me, but I suspect it is perhaps PART of the economy, not all of it. And I know you know we are not talking about sectors.

Brilliant. How did you know?

All of these links, and the above chart, show your chart is WRONG. What is the deal, Tania. How about a link directly to the chart. I would like to see the metadata.

There is nothing wrong with my data. It's just presented in a different way. Depending upon where the base period is, there must be a divergence between the real wages and productivity. After the base period, either real wages or productivity can outpace one another. But basically the earlier the base period, the greater the gap will be.

Here are real wages and output with Index 2009 = 100

Here are real wages and output with Index 1981 = 100

And here are the pages for each. I wouldn't be so concerned about the metadata if I were you. I'd take this as an opportunity to brush up on your research.

FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Nice try, research expert. It matters not at all what date you use as your index date. If you are using inflation adjusted numbers, your chart projected the wrong conclusion. As did you. Which was that productivity had been behind worker incomes. Which it has not been since the 1970's. Nice try. So, are you now admitting that, like every impartial source out there says, wages are lagging behind productivity badly???
Do you have a source saying differently???

Of course you don't. What's next for you, at. Teaching a class in how to lie with statistics???

 

[Rshermr]

Tania says:

According to the National Federation of Small Business, Government Regulations and Rep Tap are the largest concern small businesses face next to taxes. Why do you think in a poor economic climate such as this, the third most important concern for small businesses are poor sales?

Got a link??? I would like to see this information. And, it is a bit odd that I can not find the organization with a google search. Are you sure it exists??

I found it with no problem. Maybe you should check your ISP.

Every survey of small business I have seen say sales revenue is the number one issue. Something must have really changed. Or.......

Good for you.

Maybe you should try to understand that what isp i use has NOTHING TO DO WITH A GOOGLE SEARCH. So, I noticed you did not provide a link. You found it so easily, me girl. But I can not get a hit in three pages of google. Not one. And if it did exist, it would have come up very easily. So, where is that link? Where is that study? What is the web site address for this fictitious organization???At this point, it appears that you are fabricating a story to support a conservative cause. Which is that regulations have a lot to do with corporate and small business ills. I suspect you have no source and no study. If you did, you would provide the links. Sorry, me girl. What you are doing is really bad form.

 

[AmazonTania]

Nice try, research expert. It matters not at all what date you use as your index date. If you are using inflation adjusted numbers, your chart projected the wrong conclusion. As did you. Which was that productivity had been behind worker incomes. Which it has not been since the 1970's. Nice try.

It matters a great deal. Index Base Year are inflation adjusted and it refers to the year in which an index number series begins to be calculated. This will invariably have a starting value of 100 and all values being compared must diverge at value 100.

It's not the case at all that real wages have been falling for 30 years. People have just used 1980 as their starting point. You could have used any base year from 1980 - 2009, productivity would still outpace wages. The degree of how wages are outpaced is determined by the base year. The earlier the year, the greater the gap will be as the years progress.

It also matters a great deal because most usually more recent years are chosen for the base year, not later years.

So, are you now admitting that, like every impartial source out there says, wages are lagging behind productivity badly???

Not at all. Unit Labour Cost measures employee compensation relative to output. Unit Labout Cost has increased 3% from 2009 to 2013, which means as of now wages are outpacing productivity.

Do you have a source saying differently???

Of course you don't. What's next for you, at. Teaching a class in how to lie with statistics???

I've already shown you a source using the same data and how the data is measured. No matter how many times I keep telling you: Just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean it's wrong. Your initial problem is you never take the time to learn before you engage in a debate. It's really getting old.

 

[AmazonTania]

Tania says:



Got a link??? I would like to see this information. And, it is a bit odd that I can not find the organization with a google search. Are you sure it exists??

I found it with no problem. Maybe you should check your ISP.

Every survey of small business I have seen say sales revenue is the number one issue. Something must have really changed. Or.......

Good for you.

Maybe you should try to understand that what isp i use has NOTHING TO DO WITH A GOOGLE SEARCH. So, I noticed you did not provide a link. You found it so easily, me girl. But I can not get a hit in three pages of google. Not one. And if it did exist, it would have come up very easily. So, where is that link? Where is that study? What is the web site address for this fictitious organization???At this point, it appears that you are fabricating a story to support a conservative cause. Which is that regulations have a lot to do with corporate and small business ills. I suspect you have no source and no study. If you did, you would provide the links. Sorry, me girl. What you are doing is really bad form.

You can suspect all you want. The survey is easy enough for anyone to find. I don't see the point in making something up just so I can prove a point. You're really not that difficult to refute, and you'll never be that important...

 

[Rshermr]

I found it with no problem. Maybe you should check your ISP.



Good for you.

Maybe you should try to understand that what isp i use has NOTHING TO DO WITH A GOOGLE SEARCH. So, I noticed you did not provide a link. You found it so easily, me girl. But I can not get a hit in three pages of google. Not one. And if it did exist, it would have come up very easily. So, where is that link? Where is that study? What is the web site address for this fictitious organization???At this point, it appears that you are fabricating a story to support a conservative cause. Which is that regulations have a lot to do with corporate and small business ills. I suspect you have no source and no study. If you did, you would provide the links. Sorry, me girl. What you are doing is really bad form.

You can suspect all you want. The survey is easy enough for anyone to find. I don't see the point in making something up just so I can prove a point. You're really not that difficult to refute, and you'll never be that important...

You are easy to predict. Caught, you can not get out of it. You laid out a nice little story to support your agenda, and now you are caught. You can not provide any proof, because there is no proof. I am sure you are working hard at trying to come up with a plausible story. But this is like the tanker refineries, except worse. In that case it was just ignorance. Here you are caught telling untruths. There is no study, me girl, and there is no National Federation of Small Business,
Right now, you look like you are lying to everyone who would read this post. Because anyone understands that all you have to do is provide the links. Which is a good thing to do anyway. Not doing so, proves the obvious.

 

[AmazonTania]

Maybe you should try to understand that what isp i use has NOTHING TO DO WITH A GOOGLE SEARCH. So, I noticed you did not provide a link. You found it so easily, me girl. But I can not get a hit in three pages of google. Not one. And if it did exist, it would have come up very easily. So, where is that link? Where is that study? What is the web site address for this fictitious organization???At this point, it appears that you are fabricating a story to support a conservative cause. Which is that regulations have a lot to do with corporate and small business ills. I suspect you have no source and no study. If you did, you would provide the links. Sorry, me girl. What you are doing is really bad form.

You can suspect all you want. The survey is easy enough for anyone to find. I don't see the point in making something up just so I can prove a point. You're really not that difficult to refute, and you'll never be that important...

You are easy to predict. Caught, you can not get out of it. You laid out a nice little story to support your agenda, and now you are caught. You can not provide any proof, because there is no proof. I am sure you are working hard at trying to come up with a plausible story. But this is like the tanker refineries, except worse. In that case it was just ignorance. Here you are caught telling untruths. There is no study, me girl, and there is no National Federation of Small Business,
Right now, you look like you are lying to everyone who would read this post. Because anyone understands that all you have to do is provide the links. Which is a good thing to do anyway. Not doing so, proves the obvious.

I'm not going to argue with you, and I don't need a story. Anyone who wants to can easily Google the terms 'NFIB Survey August' and find the information I have already cited. Unless that person is a complete moron.

Again, I'm not going to try for you because you really don't deserve it.

 

[Rshermr]

I found it with no problem. Maybe you should check your ISP.



Good for you.

Maybe you should try to understand that what isp i use has NOTHING TO DO WITH A GOOGLE SEARCH. So, I noticed you did not provide a link. You found it so easily, me girl. But I can not get a hit in three pages of google. Not one. And if it did exist, it would have come up very easily. So, where is that link? Where is that study? What is the web site address for this fictitious organization???At this point, it appears that you are fabricating a story to support a conservative cause. Which is that regulations have a lot to do with corporate and small business ills. I suspect you have no source and no study. If you did, you would provide the links. Sorry, me girl. What you are doing is really bad form.

You can suspect all you want. The survey is easy enough for anyone to find. I don't see the point in making something up just so I can prove a point. You're really not that difficult to refute, and you'll never be that important...

Here is an actual survey. Done by an actual Small Business Organization. One you can find with a simple internet search. And it finds regulatory nurdens as the FOURTH ranked issue. And declining in a major way over the past year. Behind, for instance, customer demand.

But, of course, there is NO relationship shown between regulatory concerns and economic downturns for small business. Here, or anywhere.
http://www.nsba.biz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-MY-Report.pdf

 

[Auteur]

Should we believe AT, or those at the top of their field? Hmm, tough question.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/where-the-productivity-went/

 

[Rshermr]

You can suspect all you want. The survey is easy enough for anyone to find. I don't see the point in making something up just so I can prove a point. You're really not that difficult to refute, and you'll never be that important...

You are easy to predict. Caught, you can not get out of it. You laid out a nice little story to support your agenda, and now you are caught. You can not provide any proof, because there is no proof. I am sure you are working hard at trying to come up with a plausible story. But this is like the tanker refineries, except worse. In that case it was just ignorance. Here you are caught telling untruths. There is no study, me girl, and there is no National Federation of Small Business,
Right now, you look like you are lying to everyone who would read this post. Because anyone understands that all you have to do is provide the links. Which is a good thing to do anyway. Not doing so, proves the obvious.

I'm not going to argue with you, and I don't need a story. Anyone who wants to can easily Google the terms 'NFIB Survey August' and find the information I have already cited. Unless that person is a complete moron.

Again, I'm not going to try for you because you really don't deserve it.

Ah. There you go. I thought you would change your story. NFIB, not the National Federation of Small Business. A totally different organization. So, you assume I am a moron because I used the name you provided me?? And now you change the name of the organization??? Right.
So who is the NFIB?

The same group that exposed the previously little-known American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as a dominant force advancing corporate interests at the state level has now turned its sights on exposing the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

NFIB is hardly operating in near-secrecy, like ALEC was. The organization, which describes itself as "the voice of small business," was the lead plaintiff in the ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, taking it to the Supreme Court.

The left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy has posted on NFIBexposed.org, its new website, a study that reveals how consistently the NFIB lobbies on issues that favor large corporate interests rather than small-business interests; its thoroughly partisan agenda; and the millions it receives in secret contributions from groups associated with Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.

The NFIBexposed.org website, however, chronicles how 98 percent of NFIB's campaign contributions so far in the 2012 election cycle have gone to Republicans, and how 100 percent of its advertising budget supported either Republicans or opposed Democrats.

NFIB Exposed: 'Voice Of Small Business' Is A Front, Group Charges[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia says: The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is a conservative lobbying organization

The expenditures of NFIB were as follows:
Independent Expenditures: $3,395,315
For Democrats: $3,018
Against Democrats: $1,171,075
For Republicans: $2,405,841
Against Republicans: $0
National Fedn of Independent Business: Summary | OpenSecrets

Great. All experts in research should use completely partisan sources for their information. But, of course, another real problem is that the survey does not list regulations as the primary concern for small business. their survey is a lot more subjective in it's issues.


So, a nut case organization, not the one you named in your first several posts, and no such finding as you stated. So, nice job. Maybe the moron is the person who wasted my time with untrue statements. Ya think???

And, where is the related study showing regulations cause economic downturns??? You know, the one you do not feel needs a link. Here is a news flash, flash. You really do need to provide a link. Though I am sure you will not, because you can not.
thought so. does not exist.

 

[Rshermr]

Should we believe AT, or those at the top of their field? Hmm, tough question.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/where-the-productivity-went/

If you are discussing things with Tania, you should always, always insist on checking her sources. She likes to leave out links, for obvious reasons. Then, you should always do as you just did. As you probably know, and as Tania probably knows, there is virtually NO support for her graphs and her statement of wages being higher and growing faster than production. That, of course, is PURE FICTION which can be backed up with all sorts of sources. Her related comments are rubbish Total conservative fantasy.

 

[AmazonTania]

Give me a break AT. Banks used to be beehives of clerks and tellers and others working away over ledgers. Today we have a bank of machines, a receptionist, and a handful of tellers who mostly cater to those old enough that they are uncomfortable with ATMs, or to those with special issues. Security? Yes, so far that is still a big employer, although even here automation has made vast leaps. That magnetic strip on your drivers license or ID card? Yep, a lot of info there if required by law enforcement. CC cameras? You'll see them in lots of places, and they sure save on manpower.

I really don't know who exactly you think you're kidding. The demand for checkable deposits has surged within the past 3 years. As a result, you have an steady influx of bank teller jobs created. Cheque cashing is the most primary function of tellers. Employment in the Credit Intermediation industry increased 0.7%, which is half the rate of increase in the entire Private Service Providing Industry (1.5%). Resources are allocated to the banking sector not to merely tend the consumers too timid to use the ATM, but because the ATM's are not enough to handle the daily volume of deposits. That's what bank tellers are for.

Another thing my iPhone has done was eliminated the need for me to take a trip to the bank every paid day. Despite all of the technological advancements regarding banking: Direct Deposits, Direct Debit Payments, Online Banking, Electronic Bill Payment, etc. This still has not limited the amount of jobs created in the banking industry.

And I'm not going to even spend any time looking up the data for your ridiculous CC camera comment. In no way do cameras actually save on man power. Ever been to an office building, luxury flat complex, department store? They all have cameras, as well as security detail. If property owners are not going to spend their time monitoring the daily activity which occurs in their property, then they are going to hire someone else to do it. I guess you've never really heard of 'Lost Preventions' or any of those retail departments.

You are talking around in circles here. Your graph shows both manufacturing and "information" jobs falling since 2000, and making only a tepid recovery in the last year or so. Some manufacturing may well return to the US, and other western countries, if that is what you are getting at, but it will be computer intensive, not labour intensive.

Whether it's computer intensive or not is really not the case. The increase in manufacturing jobs is outpacing information jobs. There is no shortfall of manufacturing due to automation. This was explained using math.

If this sector is "corrected" it will be due to the increased productivity of advanced automation. This means minimal jobs.

If you consider electronic manufacturing 'menial' sure. These are generally high paying jobs.

We are going round and around the mulberry bush. You are again summarizing the sort of thing many boys and girls are reading in their high school texts as we converse here, I'm sure. History does not always follow straight lines. If indeed the increase in AI and automation describes an exponential curve rather than a linear one, then we are in for a shift in history. And the evidence to date is that many middle class jobs are disappearing, and those formerly employed there often find themselves now at the bottom end, as perhaps one of your minimum wage bank guards. If the automated Google car ever reaches widespread use, one of the last large scale sources of employment will disappear. We are approaching the time when a reevaluation of work and its place in society will be required.

I don't know what is up with your reading skills, but I have already said that the times are changing. This means that history is changing. Job creations are changing along with the times. Goods production replaces Farming and Technology replaces Goods Production. Middle Class jobs are not disappearing. They're simply changing and as these jobs change, people must change as well. Today, middle class jobs are more technological based. Computer Hardware Engineers, Human Resources Managers, Computer Network Architects, Nurse Practitioners, Information Security Analysts and more. These have become the new median income jobs and have replaced former median income jobs, such as Semiconductor Processors, Telephone Operators, Shoe and Leather Workers and Repairers, etc...

No, you have it backwards. The middle class is the result of a century and a half of labour battles. A country can see admirable growth over a long period, but how such gains are distributed are ultimately political and social questions. Britain saw tremendous growth as one of the first to industrialize, but also had extreme wealth polarization, until such time as social pressures brought change. China has seen rapid growth in recent years, but has an impoverished work force. They will have a middle class, or at least a larger one, when the powers that be say they will.

As for your small businesses, you are asking carpenters whether you house needs some wood work.

I'm really not to sure you understand how an economy grows. China currently has the largest middle class in the world as of this moment. Their per capita net worth is increasing, share of wealth is increasing and consumer markets are increasing. Urban disposable income has increased over 2000% from the 1980's. Before this time, everyone was living in huts and dying from mass starvation. They have about a faction of the labour laws which belong to Western Civilization.

The more labour laws these western countries have adopted, the stepper their decline. Most EU nations enforce mandatory month long holidays, over generous employee benefits, annual long severance pays and wonder why their young unemployment rate is so high. American politicians adopt all sorts of labour laws to protect women; as a result women enjoy a lower labour force participation rate.

You cannot legislate a middle class into existence. The middle class grows as a result of the growth in the economy. In essence, the solutions to these problems are strictly economically. It's high time you've learned some.

Hmmm. Noted, Nobel Prize winning economists, such as Paul Krugman, or Joseph Stiglitz would disagree with you. Are you going to given them an economics lesson too?

If you have to appeal to authority, it's really a sign you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. If you can't debate on your own economic knowledge, then perhaps economics is not the topic for you to discuss.

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

You reading comprehension is getting a little fuzzy AT. I didn't say I was against automation. I said that it was raising important and unprecedented issues that society was going to have to manage. Refusing to believe anything will change is not going to help.

There are no unprecedented issues. Times are changing. The human capital is changing. The types of jobs are changing. The industries are changing. Everything is changing and it has made the economy better off. It would really be better if you tried to understand this issue from an economical standpoint.