info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists, who say we must raise interest rates, because the labor market will over heat, whilst at the same time saying we cannot bring back the jobs, because robots are taking them anyways
9 views
Skip to first unread message
nickname unavailable
Mar 31, 2016, 7:50:19 PM3/31/16
to
the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists, who say we must raise interest rates, because the labor market will over heat, whilst at the same time saying we cannot bring back the jobs, because robots are taking them anyways
The fact that concerns about robots taking all the jobs can persist side-by-side with concerns that we are running out of workers says a great deal about the state of debates on economic policy at present.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/31/the-reign-of-the-robots-economists-getting-it-badly-wrong/
March 31, 2016
The Reign of the Robots: Economists Getting It Badly Wrong
by Dean Baker
A standard fear raised in Washington policy debates is that the development of robots and other forms of technology will displace tens of millions of workers, leaving much of the workforce without jobs. This is remarkable story both because it is not supported by any evidence, but also because it goes in the opposite direction of virtually all the main concerns raised in debates over economic policy.
The story of the rising robots should mean that we are seeing a rapid increase in the amount of output per hour of work. The logic is that the robots are doing work that humans used to do, so we have more output for every hour of human labor. In fact, we are seeing the exact opposite.
The rate of productivity growth, which measures output per hour of work, has slowed sharply in recent years. In the last five years productivity growth in the United States has averaged just 0.4 percent annually, the slowest five year stretch on record. This compares to a rate of close to 3.0 percent annually from 1995 to 2005, which was also the rate of productivity growth during the long post World War II Golden Age, from 1947–73.
There also is no evidence of any uptick of investment in the sectors that would be fueling a robot driven productivity boom. Real investment in information processing equipment has increased by less than 5.0 percent over the last year. That’s hardly the basis for a productivity boom.
While the robots taking over story lacks any evidence in the data, it is also 180 degrees at odds with the country’s current policy agenda. This is perhaps clearest with Federal Reserve Board policy. The Fed opted not to raise interest rates at its most recent meeting, but it did hike rates in December and has indicated that further rate hikes remain in its plans for 2016.
The logic of raising interest rates is a concern that we have too few workers. The concern is that too much demand for labor relative to the supply will push up wages, which will in turn lead to higher prices, leading to a scenario of spiraling inflation. The purpose of raising interest rates is to reduce consumption and investment demand and housing construction, thereby reducing employment so that the country does not run out of workers. This is the same argument for cutting government spending and bringing down the budget deficit. The case for this policy is that too much demand in the economy is pushing the economy against its limits, most importantly the limited supply of labor. In this context we again would see a story of either rising interest rates and/or higher inflation due to an excessive budget deficit. And the often told demographic catastrophe story of too few workers and too many retirees is quite explicitly a story where we have too few workers. The problem is that a large population of retirees will be making huge demands on the economy at a time when there are not enough workers to meet this demand. It’s rare that a week passes without some prominent politician urging the country to reduce its retirement benefits to cope with the looming demographic crisis.
The fact that concerns about robots taking all the jobs can persist side-by-side with concerns that we are running out of workers says a great deal about the state of debates on economic policy at present. Apparently, few of the participants in these debates even recognize the fundamental contradiction involved. This is like worrying that we will simultaneously be afflicted with record rains and a severe drought. Either is in principle possible, but they cannot occur at the same time. That shows a great deal about the quality of modern policy debates.
In terms of the underlying issue, whether we face a problem of robots taking all the jobs or too few workers, I come down firmly in the middle. There is little reason to think that rapid productivity growth should pose a problem for workers. We had rapid productivity growth in the Golden Age and it was associated with low rates of unemployment and rapid wage increases, as workers shared in the benefits of productivity growth. Given the slow current pace of productivity growth it is difficult to believe that it will quickly accelerate to a point that is so much faster than in the Golden Age, so that it is actually difficult to combat the job displacement with new jobs in other sectors.
On the other hand, those concerned about labor shortages also seem wrong in every respect. The U.S. labor market is still far from recovered from the full impact of the Great Recession. Employment of prime age workers (ages 25–54) is still almost three full percentage points from its pre-recession level. Given the realities of today’s labor market, there is no reason for the Fed to tighten up with higher interest rates or Congress to reduce already modest budget deficits.
On the larger demographic story, we have been seeing the same picture for the last 70 years. The population is getting older as has been the case for decades. The impact of population aging will be swamped by the impact of even very low rates of productivity growth.
In short, there are not unsolvable real world economic problems out there. The big problem is a policy elite that doesn’t seem to understand economics.
The fact that concerns about robots taking all the jobs can persist side-by-side with concerns that we are running out of workers says a great deal about the state of debates on economic policy at present.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/31/the-reign-of-the-robots-economists-getting-it-badly-wrong/
March 31, 2016
The Reign of the Robots: Economists Getting It Badly Wrong
by Dean Baker
A standard fear raised in Washington policy debates is that the development of robots and other forms of technology will displace tens of millions of workers, leaving much of the workforce without jobs. This is remarkable story both because it is not supported by any evidence, but also because it goes in the opposite direction of virtually all the main concerns raised in debates over economic policy.
The story of the rising robots should mean that we are seeing a rapid increase in the amount of output per hour of work. The logic is that the robots are doing work that humans used to do, so we have more output for every hour of human labor. In fact, we are seeing the exact opposite.
The rate of productivity growth, which measures output per hour of work, has slowed sharply in recent years. In the last five years productivity growth in the United States has averaged just 0.4 percent annually, the slowest five year stretch on record. This compares to a rate of close to 3.0 percent annually from 1995 to 2005, which was also the rate of productivity growth during the long post World War II Golden Age, from 1947–73.
There also is no evidence of any uptick of investment in the sectors that would be fueling a robot driven productivity boom. Real investment in information processing equipment has increased by less than 5.0 percent over the last year. That’s hardly the basis for a productivity boom.
While the robots taking over story lacks any evidence in the data, it is also 180 degrees at odds with the country’s current policy agenda. This is perhaps clearest with Federal Reserve Board policy. The Fed opted not to raise interest rates at its most recent meeting, but it did hike rates in December and has indicated that further rate hikes remain in its plans for 2016.
The logic of raising interest rates is a concern that we have too few workers. The concern is that too much demand for labor relative to the supply will push up wages, which will in turn lead to higher prices, leading to a scenario of spiraling inflation. The purpose of raising interest rates is to reduce consumption and investment demand and housing construction, thereby reducing employment so that the country does not run out of workers. This is the same argument for cutting government spending and bringing down the budget deficit. The case for this policy is that too much demand in the economy is pushing the economy against its limits, most importantly the limited supply of labor. In this context we again would see a story of either rising interest rates and/or higher inflation due to an excessive budget deficit. And the often told demographic catastrophe story of too few workers and too many retirees is quite explicitly a story where we have too few workers. The problem is that a large population of retirees will be making huge demands on the economy at a time when there are not enough workers to meet this demand. It’s rare that a week passes without some prominent politician urging the country to reduce its retirement benefits to cope with the looming demographic crisis.
The fact that concerns about robots taking all the jobs can persist side-by-side with concerns that we are running out of workers says a great deal about the state of debates on economic policy at present. Apparently, few of the participants in these debates even recognize the fundamental contradiction involved. This is like worrying that we will simultaneously be afflicted with record rains and a severe drought. Either is in principle possible, but they cannot occur at the same time. That shows a great deal about the quality of modern policy debates.
In terms of the underlying issue, whether we face a problem of robots taking all the jobs or too few workers, I come down firmly in the middle. There is little reason to think that rapid productivity growth should pose a problem for workers. We had rapid productivity growth in the Golden Age and it was associated with low rates of unemployment and rapid wage increases, as workers shared in the benefits of productivity growth. Given the slow current pace of productivity growth it is difficult to believe that it will quickly accelerate to a point that is so much faster than in the Golden Age, so that it is actually difficult to combat the job displacement with new jobs in other sectors.
On the other hand, those concerned about labor shortages also seem wrong in every respect. The U.S. labor market is still far from recovered from the full impact of the Great Recession. Employment of prime age workers (ages 25–54) is still almost three full percentage points from its pre-recession level. Given the realities of today’s labor market, there is no reason for the Fed to tighten up with higher interest rates or Congress to reduce already modest budget deficits.
On the larger demographic story, we have been seeing the same picture for the last 70 years. The population is getting older as has been the case for decades. The impact of population aging will be swamped by the impact of even very low rates of productivity growth.
In short, there are not unsolvable real world economic problems out there. The big problem is a policy elite that doesn’t seem to understand economics.
wien9al...@gmail.com
Mar 31, 2016, 8:49:23 PM3/31/16
to
Retrain some of the many unemployed workers so that they can fill jobs that need more workers! On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:50:19 PM UTC-4, nickname unavailable wrote:... concerns that we are running out of workers ...
Rudy Canoza
Mar 31, 2016, 9:28:56 PM3/31/16
to
On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
was already dead, lied:
Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
was already dead, lied:
> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
No.
Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 31, 2016, 9:28:59 PM3/31/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Mar 31, 2016, 9:30:19 PM3/31/16
to
nickname unavailable
Apr 1, 2016, 2:15:11 AM4/1/16
to
https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm
Works of Karl Marx 1848 Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848 [246]
On the Question of Free Trade
plimtons comrade: Marxism was very much a product of English economics; the mirror image of the free trade school. The Communist Manifesto: National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to the freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production, and in the conditions of life pertaining thereto.
Ringer
Apr 1, 2016, 6:45:06 AM4/1/16
to
up. Perhaps you could talk about interest rates and labor as it pertains to
"free market" principles.
Clave
Apr 1, 2016, 6:57:11 AM4/1/16
to
"Ringer" <byo...@peoplestel.net> wrote in message
news:y-CdneX4k5mszGPL...@neonova.net...
Rudy Canoza
Apr 1, 2016, 10:43:45 AM4/1/16
to
On 4/1/2016 3:45 AM, Ringer wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
>> was already dead, lied:
>>> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
>
> I'm sorry, that response seems to be simply a belief with nothing to back it
> up.
It's not, but I'm not about to waste any time trying to elaborate on it
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
>> was already dead, lied:
>>> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
>
> I'm sorry, that response seems to be simply a belief with nothing to back it
> up.
to the dumbest fucking Marxist ideologue in Usenet, "I wish I could have
felched Saul Alinsky, but he was already dead". She's not amenable to
persuasion.
Maybe I could support it the same way you leftist fucks support your
faith in anthropogenic global warming, and talk about the consensus of
economists. Yeah, that's a good idea: the overwhelming consensus of
economists is that free trade is hugely beneficial to the vast majority
of people. For support of those propositions - both that free trade is
beneficial to nearly anyone, *and* that it is the overwhelming consensus
of economists - I refer you to any article on the subject of trade in
The Economist newspaper. Here's one: http://www.economist.com/node/605144
I doubt I'll waste more time trying to persuade you, either, because
from your one comment, I detect the stench of a confirmed far-left
fruitcake.
Rudy Canoza
Apr 1, 2016, 10:44:14 AM4/1/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 1, 2016, 10:45:31 AM4/1/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 1, 2016, 10:45:37 AM4/1/16
to
nickname unavailable
Apr 1, 2016, 12:09:13 PM4/1/16
to
nickname unavailable
Apr 1, 2016, 12:11:18 PM4/1/16
to
it will be a huge coalition of liberals, conservatives, and minorities if bernie can overcome the rudy/hillary/marx free trade Troika.
https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie/
Rudy Canoza
Apr 1, 2016, 7:36:43 PM4/1/16
to
On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
was already dead, lied:
> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
No.
Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
was already dead, lied:
> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
No.
Rudy Canoza
Apr 1, 2016, 7:36:45 PM4/1/16
to
nickname unavailable
Apr 1, 2016, 10:01:24 PM4/1/16
to
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 6:36:45 PM UTC-5, I'm Not Male. I'm Not Female. Please Don't Ask Me About My Junk wrote:
> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
> was already dead, lied:
> > the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>
> No.
>
> marx said Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
> was already dead, lied:
> > the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>
> No.
>
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 1:00:58 AM4/2/16
to
On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
was already dead, lied:
was already dead, lied:
> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
No.
nickname unavailable
Apr 2, 2016, 1:36:35 AM4/2/16
to
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 12:00:58 AM UTC-5, I'm Not Male. I'm Not Female. Please Don't Ask Me About My Junk wrote:
> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
> was already dead, lied:
> > the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>
> No, i will not refute marx.
> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
> was already dead, lied:
> > the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>
>
> Free trade is good. People are better off with it said marx.
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 1:39:59 AM4/2/16
to
On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
was already dead, lied:
was already dead, lied:
> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
No.
Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 1:40:03 AM4/2/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 1:42:07 AM4/2/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 11:24:58 AM4/2/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 11:25:07 AM4/2/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 11:57:23 PM4/2/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 11:57:30 PM4/2/16
to
Rudy Canoza
Apr 2, 2016, 11:57:37 PM4/2/16
to
nickname unavailable
Apr 3, 2016, 1:29:11 AM4/3/16
to
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:57:37 PM UTC-5, THE WTO IS MARXIST, SO AM I WROTE:
> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
> was already dead, lied:
> > the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>
> No.
>
> Free trade is good according to marx. People are better off with it, according to marx.
> On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
> was already dead, lied:
> > the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
>
> No.
>
Rudy Canoza
Apr 3, 2016, 2:07:43 PM4/3/16
to
On 3/31/2016 4:50 PM, I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he
was already dead, lied:
> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
No.
Free trade is good. People are better off with it.
was already dead, lied:
> the absurdities of the outspoken free trade economists
No.
Rudy Canoza
Apr 3, 2016, 2:07:52 PM4/3/16
to
0 new messages