[mikemike]

Mike, I respect your intellect but you never answer the tough questions.

I believe the operative tough question is the one I proposed before: do you think that level of performance (creative thinking and independent problem solving which is beyond the capabilities of computers/robots) is beyond a large segment of the population's physical and intellectual capacity?

I think it is within people's capabilities, I think people can find a way to contribute to society and coexist with computers and they will be more productive, happy, and fulfilled by their work if they do.

unemployed persons whose manufacturing jobs have all gone to China

Off shore manufacturing is a separate issue caused largely by wage differentials between labor markets even though both are contributing to displacement of manufacturing sector jobs in the US. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing though because within the past couple of decades we have seen a middle class roughly the size of the US population emerge in both India and China at the expense of a 1-2% of the US population. So when I look at this with empathy for all mankind I see the greatest good being created for the greatest number.

[shooz]

Off shore manufacturing is a separate issue caused largely by wage differentials between labor markets

Libertarian BS!
This has been proven wrong over and over, yet you continue to parrot it.
Please stop.

[mikemike]

Libertarian BS!
This has been proven wrong over and over, yet you continue to parrot it.
Please stop.

There are other reasons. It is becoming less and less of a reason to go overseas lately but it was the major initial push. Now, it is as much because that growing overseas middle class I mentioned is creating foreign demand for goods and services. It also has to do with tougher regulations here then "over there," and policies by other governments that say to multinationals, "if you want to sell stuff here you have to make it here."

If you have another explanation for why manufacturing gets off shored, please enlighten me.

[shooz]

Lack of regulation.
Ability to pee in the stream.
Ease of money laundering.
Shell corporation to raise prices.
Complicated money trails.
Tax payers dollars to pay for it.

[Nesster]

There are other reasons. It is becoming less and less of a reason to go overseas lately but it was the major initial push. Now, it is as much because that growing overseas middle class I mentioned is creating foreign demand for goods and services. It also has to do with tougher regulations here then "over there," and policies by other governments that say to multinationals, "if you want to sell stuff here you have to make it here."

If you have another explanation for why manufacturing gets off shored, please enlighten me.

This isn't manufacturing but office work - in my experience the push to go to off shoring, near shoring, and outsourcing tends to be spreadsheet driven. Spreadsheets do not quantify quality, support levels, the value of in-house knowledge, and actual production efficiencies. In other words, the proposition has been: it's cheap enough that we can live with poorer quality, less support, the lack of people coming up through the ranks, and inefficient projects.

In office work, we of course can import the new knowledge workers (and do); in manufacturing once the hardware investment's gone it is difficult to move it back.

Offshoring manufacturing is also enabled by technology - it's cheaper to fly in the stuff as needed than to build and staff warehouses here.

That there are clear business and cost drivers for these developments does not make them desireable or the only right answers. And that's where we aren't getting good public discussion, these sorts of questions aren't easily demonized and made emotionally resonant. On one side we get business uber alles types of arguments; on the other calls for fiat government. Both are overly simplistic.

[jeffkrol]

Protectionism..
It should be illegal to "offshore" customer service centers.......

[GeneV]

I believe the operative tough question is the one I proposed before: do you think that level of performance (creative thinking and independent problem solving which is beyond the capabilities of computers/robots) is beyond a large segment of the population's physical and intellectual capacity?

I think it is within people's capabilities, I think people can find a way to contribute to society and coexist with computers and they will be more productive, happy, and fulfilled by their work if they do.

They may coexist with computers, but will anyone in the society that you propose pay them a living wage for whatever creative contribution they may make?

It is a lovely idea, fit for a classic '60s liberal, that all of us can do any job. However, though I'm fairly fit, nothing will take me to the level of a professional athlete. As machines gets smarter, the level of mental and creative abilities which we can contribute beyond the capabilities of the machine, that will actually add value for the owners of capital may require mental athletics beyond most of us.

[mikemike]

They may coexist with computers, but will anyone in the society that you propose pay them a living wage for whatever creative contribution they may make?

It is a lovely idea, fit for a classic '60s liberal, that all of us can do any job. However, though I'm fairly fit, nothing will take me to the level of a professional athlete. As machines gets smarter, the level of mental and creative abilities which we can contribute beyond the capabilities of the machine, that will actually add value for the owners of capital may require mental athletics beyond most of us.

I don't think that ANYbody can do ANY job but I think almost everyone should be able to find something useful to do.

I think this is one of those places where people on the left and the right diverge, in their assessment of their fellow man's capabilities. I am an eternal optimist so when I look at the idle people and think they could do better for themselves and the main thing holding them back is their lack of motivation because I see my own equals in terms of raw capabilities. What differentiates me or other successful people from them may be our vision of what I want to do with my life, motivation to do it, and focus to achieve it but it is not exceptionally superior attributes or luck. On the other side I see an acceptance of their weaknesses, a coddling, and an element of paternalism by the elite.

If I look into the statements and attitudes of people of different political camps I see that the left subscribes to fatalism while the right subscribes to free will.

[Nesster]

If I look into the statements and attitudes of people of different political camps I see that the left subscribes to fatalism while the right subscribes to free will.

Mike, that's a fair statement from one pov... but from another, it is the other way around.

See, the right subscribes to fatalism when it comes to the sociological level, while the left subscribes to free (political) will to improve the possibilities and support available, and that such improvement is possible and worth while.

That neither actually addresses personal motivation as an ideological and consciousness level issue is a problem.

The right believes that given the right incentives (no work = no money, morning in America type job availability) people automatically develop the personal skills of self motivation and being able to envision a positive, ever upward, path to financial and personal fulfillment...

The left believes that the main thing that's holding people back is education and economic hurdles - so with the right incentives (money for education, equal opportunity and even quotas) people will see the opportunities and avail themselves, developing the personal skills of self motivation and being able to envision a positive, ever upward, path to financial and personal fulfillment...

I've written before that in any era and any situation, a certain small percentage of people will 'make' it... no matter what. And these successes should be celebrated. But on the level of policy, ought not the state look to improve the percentage of those who make it? Instead of 2 in 100, maybe 3, maybe 5, maybe 10? Socially I'd imagine this increases the overall wealth and richness of society as a whole.

[GeneV]

I don't think that ANYbody can do ANY job but I think almost everyone should be able to find something useful to do.

I think this is one of those places where people on the left and the right diverge, in their assessment of their fellow man's capabilities. I am an eternal optimist so when I look at the idle people and think they could do better for themselves and the main thing holding them back is their lack of motivation because I see my own equals in terms of raw capabilities. What differentiates me or other successful people from them may be our vision of what I want to do with my life, motivation to do it, and focus to achieve it but it is not exceptionally superior attributes or luck. On the other side I see an acceptance of their weaknesses, a coddling, and an element of paternalism by the elite.

If I look into the statements and attitudes of people of different political camps I see that the left subscribes to fatalism while the right subscribes to free will.

There is optimism and then there is just ignoring the facts. There are many other things that differentiate us all from one another besides motivation, and luck is huge. What differentiates the ideological right and the rest of us these days appears to be that the right makes and acts upon unproven statements of faith, like the one highlighted above, while the left tries to deal with provable reality. It was not always so, and I would have said just the opposite 35 years ago.

[jeffkrol]

I don't think that ANYbody can do ANY job but I think almost everyone should be able to find something useful to do.

I think this is one of those places where people on the left and the right diverge, in their assessment of their fellow man's capabilities. I am an eternal optimist so when I look at the idle people and think they could do better for themselves and the main thing holding them back is their lack of motivation because I see my own equals in terms of raw capabilities. What differentiates me or other successful people from them may be our vision of what I want to do with my life, motivation to do it, and focus to achieve it but it is not exceptionally superior attributes or luck. On the other side I see an acceptance of their weaknesses, a coddling, and an element of paternalism by the elite.

If I look into the statements and attitudes of people of different political camps I see that the left subscribes to fatalism while the right subscribes to free will.

Don't underestimate luck.. it turned many of a pauper to a prince. HONEST people will admit such........

Think of big picture.. how many artists ect. were failures though technically superior to the successful ones..

Don't get me wrong, hard work can make up for a complete lack of talent...

And don't forget the lack of competition can increase your "worth"....

And no matter what you do 0% unemployment is impossible AND economically dangerous (inflation risks)
UNEMPLOYMENT
% of Labor Force 14.6% 9.9% 4.7% 1.9% 1.2% 1.9%

get over it, there is no invisible hand magic full employment.....

You are the unrealistic one.

[mikemike]

get over it, there is no invisible hand magic full employment.....

My point is that technological innovation permanently excludes very few people from the workforce, it has nothing to do with "full employment" or what unemployment rate constitutes that state.

What differentiates the ideological right and the rest of us these days appears to be that the right makes and acts upon unproven statements of faith, like the one highlighted above, while the left tries to deal with provable reality.

Both sides have their own issues where they like to shove their heads in there sands and their issues where they like to kick the exposed butts of fools with their heads in the sand using empirical evidence to support their claims.

[shooz]

Both sides?
Seems the libertarian/teabaggers have theirs too.

[SteveM]

Off shore manufacturing is a separate issue caused largely by wage differentials between labor markets even though both are contributing to displacement of manufacturing sector jobs in the US. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing though because within the past couple of decades we have seen a middle class roughly the size of the US population emerge in both India and China at the expense of a 1-2% of the US population. So when I look at this with empathy for all mankind I see the greatest good being created for the greatest number.

Lack of regulation.
Ability to pee in the stream.
Ease of money laundering.
Shell corporation to raise prices.
Complicated money trails.
Tax payers dollars to pay for it.

I would be suspect of the 1% or 2% of the population argument and look at it from broader terms. Look at the past 20 years with the flow of dollars and it should be obvious what is happening. When dollars go to countries like China do the come back to the US through trade? No, but they do come back as a loan on the national debt, payable by who? Apparently, only the middle class. Do you see the cycle? Smaller middle class, more in need of government help, more debt indirectly caused by the export of dollars, only to be made up by borrowing funds to be paid for by a shrinking middle class. Ignoring the obvious of the market the last week, the true cost of this probably won't show up for another 10 years but it is going to be brutal.

[mikemike]

I've written before that in any era and any situation, a certain small percentage of people will 'make' it... no matter what. And these successes should be celebrated. But on the level of policy, ought not the state look to improve the percentage of those who make it? Instead of 2 in 100, maybe 3, maybe 5, maybe 10? Socially I'd imagine this increases the overall wealth and richness of society as a whole.

I think society should grease the skids for success, and we have seen that the freer the people are and the weaker the government is the higher the percentage of people who are able to succeed and the less a role luck or fate plays in your success. Monarchies, communism, and authoritarian regimes have all managed to make it so that only the 2% who are favored by the government succeed. Only with the emergence of the bourgeoisie did we see a middle class emerge which was powerful enough to overthrow the monarchs and dismantle feudalism in western europe. Eventually we saw the proletariat rise up against the monarchies in Russia but that just went from a 2%er society to another 2%er society.

So yes, policy should make it easy for people to succeed but the policies that do that are the ones which promote freedom and do not teach dependency upon the state. They had a guy on the radio this morning talking about the transition after the berlin wall came down and saying that for the people who grew up in the east, it is not easy for them to learn to be free. We see this with people who get out of prison too, "institutionalization," they have trouble knowing what to do with their freedom. That is the kind of society that an overbearing government creates, not one where people are free to succeed on their own terms, one where they live for their ration cards to be replenished.