The good old days? In many ways, yes(minneapolisfed.org)
minneapolisfed.org
The good old days? In many ways, yes
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/the-good-old-days-in-many-ways-yes
118 comments
>It just doesn't take that many people to do all the stuff.
That's impossible. A couples of times in the past when we evolved major new technologies (e.g. industrial revolution) new jobs were created. This means there will _always_ be new jobs, it's like a contract with history.
/s -- but also how many think, taking 2-3 historical cases as some kind of necessary eternal motif.
That's impossible. A couples of times in the past when we evolved major new technologies (e.g. industrial revolution) new jobs were created. This means there will _always_ be new jobs, it's like a contract with history.
/s -- but also how many think, taking 2-3 historical cases as some kind of necessary eternal motif.
Before the digital economy, there was no concept of zero marginal cost. To produce more of something, you needed more people. A few people with an idea, a credit card, and an AWS account can scale a business that can serve millions. Before the Internet, how could 10 people create a business that was worth a billion dollars like Instagram?
Microsoft sells Windows licenses with zero marginal costs.
Microsoft sells Windows licenses with zero marginal costs.
> there was no concept of zero marginal cost
Edison made his fortune by licensing his patents. Selling tickets to a show also has zero marginal cost.
Edison made his fortune by licensing his patents. Selling tickets to a show also has zero marginal cost.
Edison licensed some of his early patents, but then he became a founder. He founded the Edison Electric Light Company, which became the Edison General Electric Company. That merged with Thomas-Houston out of Cleveland. The result was General Electric.
Up to theatre capacity.
Radio is a Big House.
Radio is a Big House.
Can a show serve millions of people around the world? Edison sold his patents for other people to make stuff - there was still a non zero marginal cost to actually get products to customers.
There is no cost for MS to sell a license. Yes you could say that most Windows licenses come with computers that did have a marginal cost. So let’s use an Office subscription as s better example.
There is no cost for MS to sell a license. Yes you could say that most Windows licenses come with computers that did have a marginal cost. So let’s use an Office subscription as s better example.
[deleted]
I think a reason those 2-3 historical cases are not an eternal motif is that humanity is probably approaching the feasible limit of Type I on the Kardashev scale.[0] We're at the first point in human history where reducing aggregate energy consumption is viewed a serious goal by most (a lot?) of the fully-industrialized world.
Previous technological advances have caused individual output to rise because individual humans were able to harness more energy. A human with a tractor does more work and consumes more energy than a human without a tractor.
Some new technology is letting us do more work with less energy input, but a lot of new technology is just automating the human out of the process and using just as much energy to do the work. One person can supervise multiple CNC mills, but those mills' power draw isn't much different than old manual Bridgeports (hell, they might actually be old manual Bridgeports with a few mods).
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Previous technological advances have caused individual output to rise because individual humans were able to harness more energy. A human with a tractor does more work and consumes more energy than a human without a tractor.
Some new technology is letting us do more work with less energy input, but a lot of new technology is just automating the human out of the process and using just as much energy to do the work. One person can supervise multiple CNC mills, but those mills' power draw isn't much different than old manual Bridgeports (hell, they might actually be old manual Bridgeports with a few mods).
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
What are you talking about. We use a minuscule amount of the sun's Earth-bound energy to make electricity and have so much cheap fossil fuel that we haven't even started on fusion reactors yet.
My conjecture is that "using all of the energy" is not going to be the limit. Perhaps I am using the Kardashev scale too loosely.
Unlike previous industrial revolutions, the current revolution in automation has not seen economic growth result from doing more work by unleashing more energy. Economic growth has generally been a result of using existing energy sources more efficiently but also from reducing labor costs.
Unlike previous industrial revolutions, the current revolution in automation has not seen economic growth result from doing more work by unleashing more energy. Economic growth has generally been a result of using existing energy sources more efficiently but also from reducing labor costs.
I think you're both right. The commenter above you is just taking the short view and you're taking the long view. Automation is great for long-term productivity and the supply of better, cheaper goods/services, but you can't argue it makes for a happy former file-clerk 5 years away from retirement who now has to find a new gig.
>I think you're both right
Well, I think I supplemented the commenter above -- I was arguing with him only ironically. I don't think it's impossible for something that happened in the past to stop happening, because the situation re: automation, robotics, and AI are qualitatively different than past evolutions (plus we're already grasping at non-productive straws to keep people occupied, e.g. the rise of bullshit jobs).
(In fact, the fully realized endgame of AI+robotics revolution would be the elimination of the need of a human involved for anything, including even creative endeavors. Why some believe "human jobs" are something that's inevitable to always exist in new forms and always enough for most of the population -- as opposed to e.g. just a 10-20% at some point, if not 0% --, is beyond me).
Well, I think I supplemented the commenter above -- I was arguing with him only ironically. I don't think it's impossible for something that happened in the past to stop happening, because the situation re: automation, robotics, and AI are qualitatively different than past evolutions (plus we're already grasping at non-productive straws to keep people occupied, e.g. the rise of bullshit jobs).
(In fact, the fully realized endgame of AI+robotics revolution would be the elimination of the need of a human involved for anything, including even creative endeavors. Why some believe "human jobs" are something that's inevitable to always exist in new forms and always enough for most of the population -- as opposed to e.g. just a 10-20% at some point, if not 0% --, is beyond me).
An example of job creation due to automation is the huge increase in the content creation industry. I don't recall the exact figures, but the rate of movie/TV production has increased enormously since the 1970's.
Something I haven't seen written about is that it wasn't that long ago that if you were middle class, you'd have a maid or other servants. I don't know anyone who has a maid. Those jobs haven't been automated, either. There's something else at work.
Something I haven't seen written about is that it wasn't that long ago that if you were middle class, you'd have a maid or other servants. I don't know anyone who has a maid. Those jobs haven't been automated, either. There's something else at work.
There was an article in The Atlantic a few years ago about the decline of domestic help, but I think this old NY Times article captures the nuance of the change better. In many ways there is still domestic help, but it is now more outsourced, and on demand.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/weekinreview/the-nation-t...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/decline...
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/weekinreview/the-nation-t...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/decline...
Solid articles, these could be reposted to HN and stand alone.
I'd like to see a plot of film crews, net of post and support, over the past 50 years.
OTOH, Hollywood isn't a major employment sector, and has massive winner-take-all dynamics. We no longer have regional acting companies, of any note.
OTOH, Hollywood isn't a major employment sector, and has massive winner-take-all dynamics. We no longer have regional acting companies, of any note.
The data I recall is the number of movies, miniseries, and TV shows has gone up by at least a factor of 20-40. There's a vast industry created to support this. Netflix, for example, seems to produce a new show every day or two (I haven't collected data on this). Then there's Amazon productions, HBO, AMC, all those channels on cable with content being produced for them, etc.
When I was a boy, there were 3 TV channels, much of which was filled with cheap crap like Jack Lalane's show and dull soap operas. Saturday was filled with retreaded WB cartoons. Once a year the new shows were rolled out. Maybe once every 2 or 3 weeks a new movie was shown in the local theater. I don't need statistics to believe there's been a DRASTIC increase.
And that's not counting all the people who make a living creating and posting youtube videos, none of which is possible without automation.
> regional acting companies
There are a lot of stage productions in Seattle. I haven't noticed either an increase or decline in them over the decades. Burlesque, of course, died out in the 1930's or so.
When I was a boy, there were 3 TV channels, much of which was filled with cheap crap like Jack Lalane's show and dull soap operas. Saturday was filled with retreaded WB cartoons. Once a year the new shows were rolled out. Maybe once every 2 or 3 weeks a new movie was shown in the local theater. I don't need statistics to believe there's been a DRASTIC increase.
And that's not counting all the people who make a living creating and posting youtube videos, none of which is possible without automation.
> regional acting companies
There are a lot of stage productions in Seattle. I haven't noticed either an increase or decline in them over the decades. Burlesque, of course, died out in the 1930's or so.
Agreed on virtually all of that.
By regional acting; I'm referring to pre-cinema, pre-radio, and to a large extent, pre-amplification. Also pre-rail, which meant that entertainment through much of the 19th century was local, at best regional (steamships ... or river rafts ... in Huck Finn's period).
The turning point was probably between 1880 and 1930. I suspect you were very young at the time ;-)
Mark Putnam's compilation of hit songs from 1840-2013 has a slightly different focus, but captures quite a bit of the dynamic. The tanitions in the 1920s, 40s, 50s, and 60s are particularly sharp.
Amplification, the war, electrification, mass media, and rock music, largely. The last driven by cheap vinyl and ubiquitous radio. Several following transitions were also tech-driven; synthesizers, mixers, tae, music video, CDs, and most recently, professional-quality home/personal production equipment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=490jTP7_0LI
By regional acting; I'm referring to pre-cinema, pre-radio, and to a large extent, pre-amplification. Also pre-rail, which meant that entertainment through much of the 19th century was local, at best regional (steamships ... or river rafts ... in Huck Finn's period).
The turning point was probably between 1880 and 1930. I suspect you were very young at the time ;-)
Mark Putnam's compilation of hit songs from 1840-2013 has a slightly different focus, but captures quite a bit of the dynamic. The tanitions in the 1920s, 40s, 50s, and 60s are particularly sharp.
Amplification, the war, electrification, mass media, and rock music, largely. The last driven by cheap vinyl and ubiquitous radio. Several following transitions were also tech-driven; synthesizers, mixers, tae, music video, CDs, and most recently, professional-quality home/personal production equipment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=490jTP7_0LI
”An example of job creation due to automation is the huge increase in the content creation industry.”
Is it? I would think audio and video recordings compete with local musicians and actors, taking away lots of jobs there.
Before recordings and amplifiers, a musician or acting group could serve, maybe, a few hundred people at a time; now, they can serve millions.
(Likely, a lot of that work historically was unpaid, but I don’t think that matters much for the point I make)
Is it? I would think audio and video recordings compete with local musicians and actors, taking away lots of jobs there.
Before recordings and amplifiers, a musician or acting group could serve, maybe, a few hundred people at a time; now, they can serve millions.
(Likely, a lot of that work historically was unpaid, but I don’t think that matters much for the point I make)
I don't see any decline in gigs for local bands that play live for weddings, high school dances, etc.
I don’t know any numbers (the best link I could find is at best anecdotal: https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2012/01/22/music-in...), but I have the impression more restaurants used to have live music than nowadays.
Full time maids are rare, but I think the majority of upper middle class households have at least part time help for tasks like cleaning and child care.
I got the /s at the end, and i understand why you formulate your opinion like this (i would probably do the same outside HN) but this is quite misleading.
I think that you're right, but it can be tricky to interpret manufacturing data since the US went from a manufactured goods net exporter to net importer since the 1970s.
My favorite example uses mining and energy.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_U...
Per the second table, American coal miner productivity more than tripled between 1970 and 2000. US coal production tonnage peaked in 2008 with about 85,000 miners while employment peaked in 1920 with about 785,000 miners.
Primary energy consumption per capita in the US peaked by 1978 and has been roughly flat for 40 years:
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_13.pdf
We're producing more energy per worker and not consuming any more energy per capita. My personal interpretation: we are bumping up against the Limits to Growth, and finding they are more on the demand side than the supply side.
My favorite example uses mining and energy.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_U...
Per the second table, American coal miner productivity more than tripled between 1970 and 2000. US coal production tonnage peaked in 2008 with about 85,000 miners while employment peaked in 1920 with about 785,000 miners.
Primary energy consumption per capita in the US peaked by 1978 and has been roughly flat for 40 years:
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_13.pdf
We're producing more energy per worker and not consuming any more energy per capita. My personal interpretation: we are bumping up against the Limits to Growth, and finding they are more on the demand side than the supply side.
That works until you factor in the amount of jobs performed by people overseas due to cheaper labor. The jobs still need to be done, but where possible businesses find cheaper people to do them.
I'm curious what you think about this:
https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...
And specifically their point that statistics on high tech are overestimating our industrial output because of certain questionable assumptions:
"The problem is, the processor released in 2017 is superior to that sold in 2016 in many tangible ways. But how do you account for the fact that a 2017 processor provides users with more value? In general, statisticians assume the difference in value between the two models is just the difference in their prices. If, say, the 2017 processor costs twice as much as the 2016 one does, then selling one 2017 processor counts as selling two of the 2016 versions in the statisticians’ books."
https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...
And specifically their point that statistics on high tech are overestimating our industrial output because of certain questionable assumptions:
"The problem is, the processor released in 2017 is superior to that sold in 2016 in many tangible ways. But how do you account for the fact that a 2017 processor provides users with more value? In general, statisticians assume the difference in value between the two models is just the difference in their prices. If, say, the 2017 processor costs twice as much as the 2016 one does, then selling one 2017 processor counts as selling two of the 2016 versions in the statisticians’ books."
I have never understood how "growth in manufacturing output was powered by semiconductors" is supposed to contradict the claim that automation is responsible for job loss in manufacturing.
First, the graphs for "manufacturing less computers" out form a more-or-less flat line. However, employment in "manufacturing less computers" declined precipitously. Even if we zero out the effect of computers and chips on manufacturing output, we still see constant output with precipitous decline in employment. Note that we see this even in countries that don't manufacture microchips.
Automation clearly is effecting manufacturing employment in manufacturing outside of chip fabs. That's patently obvious even from the graphs purportedly used to prove the opposite.
Second, the IT revolution is/was real. Most of America's largest companies are built on the back of silicon and the chips powering those market cpas were manufactured in highly automated factories. So, even setting aside (1), it's still clear that automation caused a decline in manufacturing employment. If chip fabs had required as many human workers as car plants, US manufacturing job growth would've been robust.
So not only is old manufacturing automated, but growth sectors in manufacturing are also automated. So that "new industries" don't offset automation in "old industries".
(Finally, as an aside, the rhetoric about this hidden fact that everyone ignored is IMO mostly bullshit storytelling. US economic growth in the last 30 years (and especially the last 10 years) was powered by semiconductors and information technology. Also, semiconductors have powered growth in the manufacturing sector. I don't think there is a single economist alive who doesn't know both of these facts, and many of the studies critiqued by the "semiconductors explain everything" crowd explicitly address these two facts...)
First, the graphs for "manufacturing less computers" out form a more-or-less flat line. However, employment in "manufacturing less computers" declined precipitously. Even if we zero out the effect of computers and chips on manufacturing output, we still see constant output with precipitous decline in employment. Note that we see this even in countries that don't manufacture microchips.
Automation clearly is effecting manufacturing employment in manufacturing outside of chip fabs. That's patently obvious even from the graphs purportedly used to prove the opposite.
Second, the IT revolution is/was real. Most of America's largest companies are built on the back of silicon and the chips powering those market cpas were manufactured in highly automated factories. So, even setting aside (1), it's still clear that automation caused a decline in manufacturing employment. If chip fabs had required as many human workers as car plants, US manufacturing job growth would've been robust.
So not only is old manufacturing automated, but growth sectors in manufacturing are also automated. So that "new industries" don't offset automation in "old industries".
(Finally, as an aside, the rhetoric about this hidden fact that everyone ignored is IMO mostly bullshit storytelling. US economic growth in the last 30 years (and especially the last 10 years) was powered by semiconductors and information technology. Also, semiconductors have powered growth in the manufacturing sector. I don't think there is a single economist alive who doesn't know both of these facts, and many of the studies critiqued by the "semiconductors explain everything" crowd explicitly address these two facts...)
It goes wrong both ways. A 2017 processor is at least 100x more useful than a 1987 processor of the same price. Most of the benefits of increased productivity are ignored by econometrics because the value is consumer surplus, but econometrics generally only measures price -- cost plus producer surplus.
[deleted]
The transition between economic tiers, and the role of various forms of automation in both replacing and augmenting human labour is interesting to consider.
I'm not convinced it ends well.
Related discussion / background: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/74dm5o/seeking...
I'm not convinced it ends well.
Related discussion / background: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/74dm5o/seeking...
> Peak manufacturing employment was in 1979.
Then there was a strong dollar policy, leading to a massive trade deficit.
It's weird to blame the decline of US manufacturing on automation when almost every physical object around you is imported from a country with higher manufacturing employment, in a plant with the maximum automation currently possible in that industry.
Automation isn't cheaper than meat. There are far, far higher initial costs, upkeep involves extremely specialized skills, and robots are dumb and have to constantly be babysat by meat. Also, under capitalism, meat is expected to fend for itself and self-repair, whereas robots are babies that need to be babied.
Then there was a strong dollar policy, leading to a massive trade deficit.
It's weird to blame the decline of US manufacturing on automation when almost every physical object around you is imported from a country with higher manufacturing employment, in a plant with the maximum automation currently possible in that industry.
Automation isn't cheaper than meat. There are far, far higher initial costs, upkeep involves extremely specialized skills, and robots are dumb and have to constantly be babysat by meat. Also, under capitalism, meat is expected to fend for itself and self-repair, whereas robots are babies that need to be babied.
Fortunately people are insatiable, and demand ever more goods and services as they get cheaper, and sometimes even when they don’t.
Only up to the limit of their buying power. As the CEO of WalMart says, "our customers are spent out". They watch weekly same-store sales decline each month until payday.
I've heard stories from Walmart employees about sudden increases in store traffic at midnight on the days when certain types of welfare payments hit people's accounts. People are literally waiting for the minute when the deposit hits so they can buy stuff.
If so how comes millions of illegal immigrants are coming in and doing manual jobs for less than minimum wage? Obviously there are many manual jobs in the market, it is just that people don't want to pay the actual market price for those jobs.
> at 14%
It's actually way lower than that, both by output and by headcount.
> and dropping
Not under Trump it's not: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/manufacturing-employment-i...
Quote: "Last year, 264,000 new manufacturing jobs were added, representing the highest number of new workers since 1988. As a percent of the total workforce, manufacturing rose for the first time since 1984."
Must be the "magic wand".
It's actually way lower than that, both by output and by headcount.
> and dropping
Not under Trump it's not: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/manufacturing-employment-i...
Quote: "Last year, 264,000 new manufacturing jobs were added, representing the highest number of new workers since 1988. As a percent of the total workforce, manufacturing rose for the first time since 1984."
Must be the "magic wand".
Look at the graph in [1]. Huge drop in the 2018 crash. Slow linear recovery since then. Not back to pre-crash level yet.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP
Look at the bars in the 2008 recession alone and then compare that to the sum of bars from 2011 until 2018.
We would need another decade of record growth just to offset the losses from 2009. Let alone offset 2008 and all of the loss from 2008-2010 and return to even minuscule net growth over a 2 decade period.
One might think "okay, great, so deliver another decade of growth without a period of recession". Which sounds reasonable until you dig into the reason behind the recent job growth numbers. As the article that you cite points out:
> Baumohl said companies have come to the conclusion that the likely 3% growth the U.S. enjoyed last year was a “sugar high.” With reduced expectations for growth — even with the new incentives to write off depreciation in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — CEOs have concluded it’s better to meet the additional growth opportunities with new workers than pricier machines. “Workers are viewed more like inventory,” he says. “If you need them, you can hire them, and if the economy really turns south, you can let them go. CEO have taken a very realistic approach,” he said.
I.e., if you don't produce sustained growth, employees will be laid off. But if you do produce sustained growth, then incentives shift and capital investments in automation are easier to justified. Either way, and regardless of trade policy, don't expect manufacturing employment growth over the next decade to even offset the 2008-2011 losses, let alone return us to net growth over a 20 year window.
We would need another decade of record growth just to offset the losses from 2009. Let alone offset 2008 and all of the loss from 2008-2010 and return to even minuscule net growth over a 2 decade period.
One might think "okay, great, so deliver another decade of growth without a period of recession". Which sounds reasonable until you dig into the reason behind the recent job growth numbers. As the article that you cite points out:
> Baumohl said companies have come to the conclusion that the likely 3% growth the U.S. enjoyed last year was a “sugar high.” With reduced expectations for growth — even with the new incentives to write off depreciation in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — CEOs have concluded it’s better to meet the additional growth opportunities with new workers than pricier machines. “Workers are viewed more like inventory,” he says. “If you need them, you can hire them, and if the economy really turns south, you can let them go. CEO have taken a very realistic approach,” he said.
I.e., if you don't produce sustained growth, employees will be laid off. But if you do produce sustained growth, then incentives shift and capital investments in automation are easier to justified. Either way, and regardless of trade policy, don't expect manufacturing employment growth over the next decade to even offset the 2008-2011 losses, let alone return us to net growth over a 20 year window.
> Workers are viewed more like inventory
That's how they have been viewed for many hundreds of years now. Nobody will keep you on the payroll if costs more to have you than to not have you. I don't see how this is in any way new.
What is new, however, is that Trump is rejecting the ridiculous notion that we could just let someone else manufacture everything, and actively harasses large manufacturers so they don't take the easy way out and manufacture everything in China. With productivity gains over the last few decades labor cost is not a dominant factor anymore, even though US workers cost more than some sweatshop in China.
I don't get why this is not a bipartisan thing, BTW. Democrats are supposed to be the workers' party, right? Fighting for the downtrodden and stuff? Well, millions of those downtrodden are getting decent jobs now, thanks to Trump alone.
That's how they have been viewed for many hundreds of years now. Nobody will keep you on the payroll if costs more to have you than to not have you. I don't see how this is in any way new.
What is new, however, is that Trump is rejecting the ridiculous notion that we could just let someone else manufacture everything, and actively harasses large manufacturers so they don't take the easy way out and manufacture everything in China. With productivity gains over the last few decades labor cost is not a dominant factor anymore, even though US workers cost more than some sweatshop in China.
I don't get why this is not a bipartisan thing, BTW. Democrats are supposed to be the workers' party, right? Fighting for the downtrodden and stuff? Well, millions of those downtrodden are getting decent jobs now, thanks to Trump alone.
There is been consistently small growth since 2012 after the recession, and a bit of bump in 2018. Of course it's still nowhere near returning to per capita levels of decades ago.
"Less-educated Americans born in the 1960s fare much worse than those born 20 years earlier"
One interesting thing worth watching for here is selection bias. If the average education level increased during this 20 year period, then we aren't comparing similar cohorts when we select for a particular level of education at the two different times.
One interesting thing worth watching for here is selection bias. If the average education level increased during this 20 year period, then we aren't comparing similar cohorts when we select for a particular level of education at the two different times.
But graduation rates are meaningless because they are easily gamed. Compare average SAT scores from 1970's to today and the trend is downward.
Graduation rates are easy to boost: Graduate bad, failing students. SAT scores are not so hard to fake.
Graduation rates are easy to boost: Graduate bad, failing students. SAT scores are not so hard to fake.
It has become impossible to me to read articles on this topic that don't make clear if their "stagnant wages" are corrected for the health care benefits eating up all potential increases for workers who are at the bottom end of the compensation range. Ever since this effect was explained on econtalk (https://www.econtalk.org/mark-warshawsky-on-compensation-hea...) I'm convinced that the US health care system is the #1 problem that needs fixing.
From the abstract:
Welfare losses, measured as a one-time asset compensation, are 12.5%, 8%, and 7.2% of the present discounted value of earnings for single men, couples, and single women, respectively. Lower wages explain 47-58% of these losses, shorter life expectancies 25-34%, and higher medical expenses account for the rest.
Welfare losses, measured as a one-time asset compensation, are 12.5%, 8%, and 7.2% of the present discounted value of earnings for single men, couples, and single women, respectively. Lower wages explain 47-58% of these losses, shorter life expectancies 25-34%, and higher medical expenses account for the rest.
I'm still not clear if higher medical expenses refers to expenses that were directly paid by the worker or also accounts for costs the employer paid as part of the total compensation package but that never passed through the hands of the worker.
I believe people in the earlier cohort were more likely to die as children as child mortality was higher in the past. If so, that could apply a selection bias to the age 66 and up subset of this cohort, since those who survive their childhood could tend to have a natural proclivity to be healthier into old-age than those who don't.
Moreover, people became more educated over that 20 year timespan, so comparing people of equal absolute educational attainment across the two periods could be a case of comparing a higher socioeconomic group to a lower one.
Moreover, people became more educated over that 20 year timespan, so comparing people of equal absolute educational attainment across the two periods could be a case of comparing a higher socioeconomic group to a lower one.
If they think it's gotten bad from the 1940 cohort to 1960, wait until they look at the 1980 cohort. Anecdotally, among my friends and family without a college degree, the situation is dire indeed.
This essay suggests that the peak years for the USA standard of living were in the mid-20th Century, and those born before World War II saw the greatest benefits.
There will eventually be political consequences for the erosion of the USA standard of living. The Economist magazine had an article, which was discussed here on Hacker News, with the title “The link between polygamy and war“ to which I responded:
"This suggests that political stability depends on young men being able to pursue their romantic dreams. This would apply in any country, not just African countries. In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. In the USA, the happiest year for this ratio was 1958, when people were spending 22% of their income on rent, on average. Not by coincidence, this was the peak year of the Baby Boom. In some sense, it was the best year in history to be a young white male in the USA. It was the year when it was easiest for an 18 year old male to get out of high school, get their own apartment, marry their high school sweetheart, and start a family. And of course, young people did this in huge numbers, which is why 1958 remains the peak year for teenage pregnancy in the USA."
More here:
http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike...
There will eventually be political consequences for the erosion of the USA standard of living. The Economist magazine had an article, which was discussed here on Hacker News, with the title “The link between polygamy and war“ to which I responded:
"This suggests that political stability depends on young men being able to pursue their romantic dreams. This would apply in any country, not just African countries. In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. In the USA, the happiest year for this ratio was 1958, when people were spending 22% of their income on rent, on average. Not by coincidence, this was the peak year of the Baby Boom. In some sense, it was the best year in history to be a young white male in the USA. It was the year when it was easiest for an 18 year old male to get out of high school, get their own apartment, marry their high school sweetheart, and start a family. And of course, young people did this in huge numbers, which is why 1958 remains the peak year for teenage pregnancy in the USA."
More here:
http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike...
That would go along with the article from yesterday saying that fewer young men in the US are having sex than ever before:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19524642
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19524642
Most people look at economies as an extension of supply-demand curves in a Newtonian-esque model where one ball hits the next, transfers momentum (elastically or otherwise) and so forth. Everything is down to a great chain of causality that creates a nexus of forces. Consequently, "fixing" things in this model means more of Force X over Y. Or, applying Lever A to Spot Z to induce Force P. The force or lever can be regulations, deregulation, taxation, tax cuts, interest rate changes, jailing bankers... And people may come at it from different ideologies, but the Newtonian mental model remains. Everyone repeats ad infinitum if only we quantized and applied X or Y then clearly such and such outcome will occur. And this technique very rarely works out.
It might help us stave off a great amount of unrest if we shift this frame of reference. A new perspective and a new way of doing things where we view our economies as ecosystems or networks might clarify why these changes are occurring. For example, we can look at excessive economic inequality and understand why it is bad by looking at natural ecosystems and how they are a closed loop.
For e.g. Consumers are like plankton. They are the injection of biomass (money) into the system that ensures money changes hands when they buy goods and services. A single entity, no matter how rich, cannot provide equivalent mass to the greater ecosystem than a large set of consumers. Or, in other words, a billionaire requires only so many pairs of sunglasses and Netflix subscriptions. Ergo, a broad base of wealth where people can afford the products around them is essential for a capitalistic ecosystem to function, as these plankton keep feeding entities higher up in the food chain through an accumulation effect.
For whatever reason, just like we have decimated our natural environment, we have also decimated our economic ecosystem. The number of entities with high purchasing power is rapidly decreasing, and this signals a significant problem for the future of the ecosystem. And it also suggests how automation can end up eating itself economically unless we institute measures - artificial or otherwise - that inject capital back into the building blocks of the economy.
I suspect that as computing gets better, we will eventually create models that will make the current economic debates and models we have obsolete. Our arguments over taxation, immigration, regulation, reform etc. will seem quite quaint to people in the future if we manage to make this transition and if we can help policymakers and thinking individuals see economies in real-time, and simulate outcomes of individual, highly variable, irrational agents at unprecedented scales.
But we're not there yet. But we could be. We can fix this. And we will. I am sure of that because brilliant people are working on this problem and eventually, we'll get it right.
I hold out hope for a better future no matter how bad this news gets and I remember that we're in a state of flux and things always appear darker in these times.
It might help us stave off a great amount of unrest if we shift this frame of reference. A new perspective and a new way of doing things where we view our economies as ecosystems or networks might clarify why these changes are occurring. For example, we can look at excessive economic inequality and understand why it is bad by looking at natural ecosystems and how they are a closed loop.
For e.g. Consumers are like plankton. They are the injection of biomass (money) into the system that ensures money changes hands when they buy goods and services. A single entity, no matter how rich, cannot provide equivalent mass to the greater ecosystem than a large set of consumers. Or, in other words, a billionaire requires only so many pairs of sunglasses and Netflix subscriptions. Ergo, a broad base of wealth where people can afford the products around them is essential for a capitalistic ecosystem to function, as these plankton keep feeding entities higher up in the food chain through an accumulation effect.
For whatever reason, just like we have decimated our natural environment, we have also decimated our economic ecosystem. The number of entities with high purchasing power is rapidly decreasing, and this signals a significant problem for the future of the ecosystem. And it also suggests how automation can end up eating itself economically unless we institute measures - artificial or otherwise - that inject capital back into the building blocks of the economy.
I suspect that as computing gets better, we will eventually create models that will make the current economic debates and models we have obsolete. Our arguments over taxation, immigration, regulation, reform etc. will seem quite quaint to people in the future if we manage to make this transition and if we can help policymakers and thinking individuals see economies in real-time, and simulate outcomes of individual, highly variable, irrational agents at unprecedented scales.
But we're not there yet. But we could be. We can fix this. And we will. I am sure of that because brilliant people are working on this problem and eventually, we'll get it right.
I hold out hope for a better future no matter how bad this news gets and I remember that we're in a state of flux and things always appear darker in these times.
I'm suspicious. When I see a large chart titled "Life expectancy at age 66" it sets off all kinds of alarm bells.
Why 66? Why not 50 or 60 or 70? What was special about 66 that it was chosen, and why wasn't it explained?
Why 66? Why not 50 or 60 or 70? What was special about 66 that it was chosen, and why wasn't it explained?
Similarly, mass shootings per year compared by country where mass shooting is defined as 4 people getting shot.
But whenever people talk about the 'good old days' they're racist, right? /s
It amazes me how much people will vote against their own self-interest. Also, something a lot of the SV and educated crowd don't understand, but immigration disproportionately affects uneducated workers by dramatically increasing the supply of labour with workers willing to work for low wages (they are partaking in wage arbitrage vs. their home country). Lots of industries that are dominated by immigrants and illegal migrants today used to offer far better income and living conditions 2 generations ago.
If people truly cared about the plight of the uneducated working class, there'd be taxes on wealth, incentives against rentiers, far higher minimum wages (to discourage wage arbitrage by immigrants from poorer countries) and maybe even basic income. Or a limit on the supply of labour (ie. slow down immigration) and tariffs to combat outsourcing. The first is a better outcome IMO, but the second is a perfectly rational reaction.
But hey, bringing up actual economic effects of social policy is racist and bigoted, right? That's why the current bourgeoisie doesn't understand movements like Brexit, populism, etc...
Edit - for the record, I like left-wing solutions better. I very much admire and agree with economists like Piketty. But most left-wing parties in the west have really dropped the ball. They're beholden to the same rich donors, and gloss over economic policy by championing social justice instead.
Edit 2 - some back up for my assertions: https://www.nber.org/papers/w3761
It amazes me how much people will vote against their own self-interest. Also, something a lot of the SV and educated crowd don't understand, but immigration disproportionately affects uneducated workers by dramatically increasing the supply of labour with workers willing to work for low wages (they are partaking in wage arbitrage vs. their home country). Lots of industries that are dominated by immigrants and illegal migrants today used to offer far better income and living conditions 2 generations ago.
If people truly cared about the plight of the uneducated working class, there'd be taxes on wealth, incentives against rentiers, far higher minimum wages (to discourage wage arbitrage by immigrants from poorer countries) and maybe even basic income. Or a limit on the supply of labour (ie. slow down immigration) and tariffs to combat outsourcing. The first is a better outcome IMO, but the second is a perfectly rational reaction.
But hey, bringing up actual economic effects of social policy is racist and bigoted, right? That's why the current bourgeoisie doesn't understand movements like Brexit, populism, etc...
Edit - for the record, I like left-wing solutions better. I very much admire and agree with economists like Piketty. But most left-wing parties in the west have really dropped the ball. They're beholden to the same rich donors, and gloss over economic policy by championing social justice instead.
Edit 2 - some back up for my assertions: https://www.nber.org/papers/w3761
I agree, the base of the Democratic party has pursued a self-congratulatory image of inclusivity and righteousness to the point that many working-class whites think they're an afterthought to the Dems. I remember watching the 2016 DNC, seeing a procession of speakers who represented cities and minority communities, and thinking "if I were a poor white person and I thought the Democratic party had forgotten me, this would play right into that belief."
Ironically Democratic policies regarding education, environment, and labor would give a better deal to working-class folk of any background, and Republican posturing about education has more to do with image than with preventing unskilled work from entering the country (after all, business loves Republicans and business loves low wages). But so much of politics is an image game, and once Nixon pioneered (ew) the implicit politicization of race, the Dems never controlled their narrative again. They more or less embraced the role defined for them by their enemy, which is a classic strategic blunder. I'm not sure how they can reclaim the narrative upper hand.
And yes, I agree. By sticking too moral principles in the immigration fight, Dems are losing that too. But the alternative is to be logical, which doesn't tend to work with a loosely informed electorate that votes on feelings. Curious if anyone has thoughts on a better strategy there. It almost seems like the left needs an orator who can precisely walk the line between acknowledging and speaking to lower-class white outrage and also acknowledging all peoples' humanity.
Ironically Democratic policies regarding education, environment, and labor would give a better deal to working-class folk of any background, and Republican posturing about education has more to do with image than with preventing unskilled work from entering the country (after all, business loves Republicans and business loves low wages). But so much of politics is an image game, and once Nixon pioneered (ew) the implicit politicization of race, the Dems never controlled their narrative again. They more or less embraced the role defined for them by their enemy, which is a classic strategic blunder. I'm not sure how they can reclaim the narrative upper hand.
And yes, I agree. By sticking too moral principles in the immigration fight, Dems are losing that too. But the alternative is to be logical, which doesn't tend to work with a loosely informed electorate that votes on feelings. Curious if anyone has thoughts on a better strategy there. It almost seems like the left needs an orator who can precisely walk the line between acknowledging and speaking to lower-class white outrage and also acknowledging all peoples' humanity.
> It almost seems like the left needs an orator who can precisely walk the line between acknowledging and speaking to lower-class white outrage and also acknowledging all peoples' humanity.
I’m going to sound like a broken record on my HN comments and he may end up being completely full of shit, but right now I think that description fits Pete Buttigieg to a tee. You can find plenty of flattering coverage of him if you Google, so I won’t link to any of that. Instead I’ll link to a take down of Buttigieg that you can contrast against the flattering coverage of him.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete
I’m going to sound like a broken record on my HN comments and he may end up being completely full of shit, but right now I think that description fits Pete Buttigieg to a tee. You can find plenty of flattering coverage of him if you Google, so I won’t link to any of that. Instead I’ll link to a take down of Buttigieg that you can contrast against the flattering coverage of him.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete
> But whenever people talk about the 'good old days' they're racist, right? /s
Why can't we have a more nuanced discussion and acknowledge both: a. that globalism, free trade, and automation have negatively impacted blue collar workers b. that much of blue collar quality of life in good old days did come at the explicitly racist policies, starting with slavery and continuing through federally enforced redlining in which has been the main source of wealth accumulation [1]
It's also worth noting that many working class gains in the "good old days" excluded black workers due to historical racial divisions in labor movement and unions explicitly opposed economic liberties for racial and ethnic minorities. [2] MLK was murdered while working to unify the racial and labor struggles. This division continues to be exploited by populist politicians.
> If people truly cared about the plight of the uneducated working class, there'd be taxes on wealth, incentives against rentiers, far higher minimum wages FWIW, I agree with these items and grew up on a farm in the white american heartland
The GI bill is another good example of economic support for the working class from the "good old days" that like much of the Jim Crow era primarily benefited whites at the expense of other racial groups [3]
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-unf...
2. https://racial-justice.aflcio.org/blog/est-aliquid-se-ipsum-...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I....
Why can't we have a more nuanced discussion and acknowledge both: a. that globalism, free trade, and automation have negatively impacted blue collar workers b. that much of blue collar quality of life in good old days did come at the explicitly racist policies, starting with slavery and continuing through federally enforced redlining in which has been the main source of wealth accumulation [1]
It's also worth noting that many working class gains in the "good old days" excluded black workers due to historical racial divisions in labor movement and unions explicitly opposed economic liberties for racial and ethnic minorities. [2] MLK was murdered while working to unify the racial and labor struggles. This division continues to be exploited by populist politicians.
> If people truly cared about the plight of the uneducated working class, there'd be taxes on wealth, incentives against rentiers, far higher minimum wages FWIW, I agree with these items and grew up on a farm in the white american heartland
The GI bill is another good example of economic support for the working class from the "good old days" that like much of the Jim Crow era primarily benefited whites at the expense of other racial groups [3]
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-unf...
2. https://racial-justice.aflcio.org/blog/est-aliquid-se-ipsum-...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I....
Blue colar workers did not profited from slavery. The interests of free labor were one of reasons for slavery opposition. Blue colar worker can't compete with slave (or ther slaveholder using slave).
White blue collar workers benefited (or believed that they benefited) from racial exclusion. That's why many labor unions in US were white-only, and supported segregation:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/labor-unions-and...
(note the date)
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/labor-unions-and...
(note the date)
There is massive difference between racial exclusion (where blacks cant perform work) and slavery (where they are forced to perform the work for zero compensation and thus are cheaper).
I wanted to disagree with that one specific point.
I wanted to disagree with that one specific point.
You're compressing history; "blue collar" didn't exist during slavery.
I took it as labor people - those who do manual work for compensation. Field, work, carpenter, etc. It did existed during that time period in states where slavery was not legal.
There was much less of it in states where slavery was legal.
There was much less of it in states where slavery was legal.
Blue collar workers in the North definitely benefited from slavery in the form of lower cost of living as many items were imported from the South to the North. Also cheaper imports for northern manufacturing increased the value of norther labor.
> If people truly cared about the plight of the uneducated working class, there'd be taxes on wealth, incentives against rentiers, ... and maybe even basic income.
Maybe there would be those things in certain countries now, if the uneducated working class focused intently on voting for parties calling for those things instead of being distracted by political forces that wish to blame immigration for their problems. If I were a lower-income person, I would much rather live on basic income (and have the time to seek training and employment for better prospects) while letting gastarbeiter do all the shit work, than to have to do the shit work myself.
Maybe there would be those things in certain countries now, if the uneducated working class focused intently on voting for parties calling for those things instead of being distracted by political forces that wish to blame immigration for their problems. If I were a lower-income person, I would much rather live on basic income (and have the time to seek training and employment for better prospects) while letting gastarbeiter do all the shit work, than to have to do the shit work myself.
If you have an ever wider empathic perspective, maybe immigration hurts poor Americans but helps poor foreigners even more.
Should it really be economic policy to fuck part of your own population so that another countries' migrants can make more money?
Dunno, when I did my econ degree economic development was still talked about. It seems that everyone has given up on economic development and would rather plunder a nation's workforce to benefit their own capitalist class.
Dunno, when I did my econ degree economic development was still talked about. It seems that everyone has given up on economic development and would rather plunder a nation's workforce to benefit their own capitalist class.
Or would incentivize investing in said foreign countries with lower labor costs?
> If you have an ever wider empathic perspective, maybe immigration hurts poor Americans but helps poor foreigners even more.
This is actually a case of toxic empathy: that view isn't the one that leads to the best outcome, because it destroys your capacity to help for short term improvements, leading to long term negative outcomes and an increased number of victims. Tempering raw empathy with rational evaluation increases your capacity to help and leads to a greatly improved outcome.
To use a cliche: during a rescue, don't become a victim.
An overabundance of immigration disrupts the host culture, which is the feature of the world that is causing the good outcome -- that the host culture causes more human thriving than the culture being emigrated from. When you draw too much from the resources of healthy cultures to try and fix systemic problems in other cultures, you end up damaging the healthy cultures, not fixing the problem. This simply degrades the situation, whereas a slower rate of change would remain stable, and lead to a genuine improvement in the world.
It's a cancerous idea, caused by failing to regulate your emotions: you're not being genuinely empathetic, you're shirking responsibility to get high on good feelings because look at how woke.
This is actually a case of toxic empathy: that view isn't the one that leads to the best outcome, because it destroys your capacity to help for short term improvements, leading to long term negative outcomes and an increased number of victims. Tempering raw empathy with rational evaluation increases your capacity to help and leads to a greatly improved outcome.
To use a cliche: during a rescue, don't become a victim.
An overabundance of immigration disrupts the host culture, which is the feature of the world that is causing the good outcome -- that the host culture causes more human thriving than the culture being emigrated from. When you draw too much from the resources of healthy cultures to try and fix systemic problems in other cultures, you end up damaging the healthy cultures, not fixing the problem. This simply degrades the situation, whereas a slower rate of change would remain stable, and lead to a genuine improvement in the world.
It's a cancerous idea, caused by failing to regulate your emotions: you're not being genuinely empathetic, you're shirking responsibility to get high on good feelings because look at how woke.
I described a scenario where more foreigners are helped than Americans are hurt.
You're criticizing the opposite scenario.
You're criticizing the opposite scenario.
[deleted]
The manipulation that allowed slavery to exist it pretty similar to the immigrant rhetoric.
In the civil war era, “Johnny Reb” was a poor white devalued by slavery. Racial superiority and disdain was the bread and circus that kept the system going. In the north, the Irish and other immigrants were often virulently racist as their labors threatened by it. That’s a big part of why you had riots in New York that escalated to the point of near insurrection.
In the civil war era, “Johnny Reb” was a poor white devalued by slavery. Racial superiority and disdain was the bread and circus that kept the system going. In the north, the Irish and other immigrants were often virulently racist as their labors threatened by it. That’s a big part of why you had riots in New York that escalated to the point of near insurrection.
I am sympathetic with your broad POV, but in fact there is precious little evidence that immigration has harmed workers wages. For reviews see e.g.
Kerr, S.P. and Kerr, W.R., 2011. Economic impacts of immigration: A survey (No. w16736). National Bureau of Economic Research. Dustmann, C., Glitz, A. and Frattini, T., 2008. The labour market impact of immigration. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(3), pp.477-494.
By contrast, there is plenty of evidence that trade with China harmed US workers' wages, starting with:
David, H., Dorn, D. and Hanson, G.H., 2013. The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103(6), pp.2121-68.
I don't say academics are guaranteed to be right, but they have looked pretty hard for labour market effects of migration, and not found them. There may be some specific groups of workers who have suffered a lot - but you don't see broad overall effects.
Kerr, S.P. and Kerr, W.R., 2011. Economic impacts of immigration: A survey (No. w16736). National Bureau of Economic Research. Dustmann, C., Glitz, A. and Frattini, T., 2008. The labour market impact of immigration. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(3), pp.477-494.
By contrast, there is plenty of evidence that trade with China harmed US workers' wages, starting with:
David, H., Dorn, D. and Hanson, G.H., 2013. The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103(6), pp.2121-68.
I don't say academics are guaranteed to be right, but they have looked pretty hard for labour market effects of migration, and not found them. There may be some specific groups of workers who have suffered a lot - but you don't see broad overall effects.
The fact that IBM (and others) insist on the continued flow of H1-B workers shackled to their visa is evidence enough that it harms workers' wages.
That wouldn't prove it harms workers. It would prove it benefits IBM. What benefits IBM may also benefit the rest of the US - for example, by lowering the cost of IBM's services.
Labour economists have spent thousands of hours analysing data to understand the effects of migration. There are thirty years of papers. Some are quite good. It would be better if the public debate were more informed by this effort.
Labour economists have spent thousands of hours analysing data to understand the effects of migration. There are thirty years of papers. Some are quite good. It would be better if the public debate were more informed by this effort.
[deleted]
> There may be some specific groups of workers who have suffered a lot
And that's the point. Obviously plenty of people in the US are very well off, that won't make poor people any happier.
Also, outsourcing labour and bringing in migrants have similar effects on wages because in both cases domestic labour is being replaced with lower-cost labour.
And that's the point. Obviously plenty of people in the US are very well off, that won't make poor people any happier.
Also, outsourcing labour and bringing in migrants have similar effects on wages because in both cases domestic labour is being replaced with lower-cost labour.
You may think that poor people have suffered from migration - but it is very hard to see in the data. That is my point.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w3761
No, the data supports it, especially over the time period outlined by the original article.
No, the data supports it, especially over the time period outlined by the original article.
That paper is interesting but it was published in 1991, and it predates the modern use of exogenous shocks to get clear evidence on causality. In particular, it doesn't directly estimate effects on wages - it calculates them from an economic model. Whereas this paper looks directly for wage effects, in the context of a big local labour supply shock, and doesn't find them:
Card, D., 1990. The impact of the Mariel boatlift on the Miami labor market. ILR Review, 43(2), pp.245-257.
Borjas is an interesting guy and I respect him, but I don't think the overall literature supports his negative view of migration's effects on wages.
I stand by my claim, not because I'm a huge expert, but backed up by the two literature reviews mentioned above.
Card, D., 1990. The impact of the Mariel boatlift on the Miami labor market. ILR Review, 43(2), pp.245-257.
Borjas is an interesting guy and I respect him, but I don't think the overall literature supports his negative view of migration's effects on wages.
I stand by my claim, not because I'm a huge expert, but backed up by the two literature reviews mentioned above.
Your paper is literally cited and explained by the one I posted...
Seems like this would have made for a great dialog with the working class rather than refusing to engage and painting them all racists and deplorables. Imagine how different the political landscape might look if we tried to bring people into the fold instead of looking for ways to implicate them as closet Nazis.
Agreed!
I’m really disappointed that we middle/upper class liberals who used to advocate for free speech and rational debate and compassion/inclusivity (esp of the disenfranchised) find it much easier to demonize and misrepresent this group rather than empathize or engage with their arguments. For all the criticism we levied at conservatives for their hypocrisy, utter lack of self-awareness, and authoritarian instincts, we are determined to outdo them.
Well, since it seems like you stating that illegal immigration disproportionately hurts the working class comes across as a right wing talking point - and I thought so too for the longest. My mind was changed by NPR of all things....
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/632/transcript
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/633/transcript
Companies do in fact discriminate against Americans for low wage workers because they can pay them less and some companies do skirt worker verification requirements when hiring low skilled workers.
Of course seeing that I am a minority, I don’t approve of the demonization of foreigners. They are using the same tactics that use to be called the Southern Strategy.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/632/transcript
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/633/transcript
Companies do in fact discriminate against Americans for low wage workers because they can pay them less and some companies do skirt worker verification requirements when hiring low skilled workers.
Of course seeing that I am a minority, I don’t approve of the demonization of foreigners. They are using the same tactics that use to be called the Southern Strategy.
[deleted]
"immigration disproportionately affects uneducated workers by dramatically increasing the supply of labour"
Can you back these arguments with some evidence? Otherwise they are just empty claims.
Can you back these arguments with some evidence? Otherwise they are just empty claims.
"Otherwise they are just empty claims."
No, it's basic economics actually.
All other things equal, if you increase the supply of labour, you're going to see lower prices.
Of course, the economy is not 'all things equal' i.e. more bodies means more consumers etc. but the logic is fairly sound.
In Northern Alberta, for the Oil sands, the lingo they use to push for more migrants is 'labour input costs': "We're seeing risks due to labour input costs" etc.. It's a slightly extreme case given the isolation up there but it's real.
So in the 'long run' things might work better out but the short run economics are pretty straightforward.
No, it's basic economics actually.
All other things equal, if you increase the supply of labour, you're going to see lower prices.
Of course, the economy is not 'all things equal' i.e. more bodies means more consumers etc. but the logic is fairly sound.
In Northern Alberta, for the Oil sands, the lingo they use to push for more migrants is 'labour input costs': "We're seeing risks due to labour input costs" etc.. It's a slightly extreme case given the isolation up there but it's real.
So in the 'long run' things might work better out but the short run economics are pretty straightforward.
How are we accommodating growth of the economy in this argument? Or even growth in a particular industry with a high demand for labor?
That's 'long run' economics. So yes, as soon as you get outside the short run it gets hard to calculate.
But it's really hard to argue in any circumstance that 'more workers = higher wages' because wages will be a function of available labour.
The 'rub' in the data really is the fact it doesn't take into consideration the black market. Wages paid under the table are 100% part of the real economy, and those are wages, but they generally don't go into the equations.
Imagine if the 'average us wage' were calculated with a few million extra people earning below minimum and with zero benefits?
When there is full employment though, and not tons of undocumented workers, one could argue that economic expansion could pick up the slack, surely.
But it's really hard to argue in any circumstance that 'more workers = higher wages' because wages will be a function of available labour.
The 'rub' in the data really is the fact it doesn't take into consideration the black market. Wages paid under the table are 100% part of the real economy, and those are wages, but they generally don't go into the equations.
Imagine if the 'average us wage' were calculated with a few million extra people earning below minimum and with zero benefits?
When there is full employment though, and not tons of undocumented workers, one could argue that economic expansion could pick up the slack, surely.
Assuming we are talking low skill illegal immigration:
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pd...
Highly skilled, educated, legal immigrants are going to be a net positive.
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pd...
Highly skilled, educated, legal immigrants are going to be a net positive.
Here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w3761
Tldr is that immigration can explain 40% of the effects on relative earnings for non-educated workers.
Tldr is that immigration can explain 40% of the effects on relative earnings for non-educated workers.
Lots of people with litte money are a dramatic increase in the labor supply, pretty much by definition?
I’m not sure what other evidence you’d be looking for.
I’m not sure what other evidence you’d be looking for.
Imagine an island with 100 people and let's make a reasonable assumption that everyone's occupation contributes positively. Everybody works and is able to live comfortably by trading their products and services.
Now imagine an island with 100 million. On this island, some huge fraction of jobs dont contribute positively, or at least value is not > pay. A lot of this comes from anticompetitive markets or from highly regulated ones.
Then imagine on that big island, a central bank prints out a significant portion of that island's GDP in cold hard cash and trades it only with Wall St (they could at least buy healthcare, education, housing or food, but they buy bonds or "toxic assets"). Or maybe they make a sneaky argument and claim to buy housing by buying CMOs, MBSs, etc, as a way to hide the fact that they are paying Wall St.
Now are the problems anything but obvious?
Now imagine an island with 100 million. On this island, some huge fraction of jobs dont contribute positively, or at least value is not > pay. A lot of this comes from anticompetitive markets or from highly regulated ones.
Then imagine on that big island, a central bank prints out a significant portion of that island's GDP in cold hard cash and trades it only with Wall St (they could at least buy healthcare, education, housing or food, but they buy bonds or "toxic assets"). Or maybe they make a sneaky argument and claim to buy housing by buying CMOs, MBSs, etc, as a way to hide the fact that they are paying Wall St.
Now are the problems anything but obvious?
This island also has a group of privileged and unprivileged people, and one of the privileged ones fucked it up so badly that everyone was like, ok let’s see what this other group has got. They talk about universal healthcare and redistribution of wealth to serve everyone better. But it would mean a lot of the traditionally privileged group would have to accept a lower status on the island. So they give a final Hail Mary in the attempt to prevent this, because ultimately, if you’re entire self-worth is based on your privileged status, it doesn’t matter how healthy you are or how good of an outcome you may have. Social hierarchy is powerful.
The article only studied whites, for homogeneity. Maybe the good ole days for some, but the world is drastically better today for most of the people living in it than it was in the 40s, or 60s.
It might help the entire situation of pride and social hierarchy if people who wear dickies and work with their hands weren’t getting constantly shit on, for no other reason than they wear dickies and work with their hands. Plenty of people in liberal white-guilt circles too whose entire self-worth is built around race - let’s call these people racists.
The article only studied whites, for homogeneity. Maybe the good ole days for some, but the world is drastically better today for most of the people living in it than it was in the 40s, or 60s.
It might help the entire situation of pride and social hierarchy if people who wear dickies and work with their hands weren’t getting constantly shit on, for no other reason than they wear dickies and work with their hands. Plenty of people in liberal white-guilt circles too whose entire self-worth is built around race - let’s call these people racists.
The US emerged from World War II the global superpower while much of the rest of the world was literally decimated and turned to ruins. We built an incredible industrial and commercial base to support and profit from the war. This overlapped with (and drove) major leaps forward in technology that the US was uniquely positioned to take advantage of.
The "good old days" did exist but they were an extreme anomaly following the largest war in human history. I think people have a hard time realizing this because the mores and culture from that time period were encoded, broadcast and digested by the rest of the world. We still live orbiting around 20th century mass media cultural concepts.
The "good old days" did exist but they were an extreme anomaly following the largest war in human history. I think people have a hard time realizing this because the mores and culture from that time period were encoded, broadcast and digested by the rest of the world. We still live orbiting around 20th century mass media cultural concepts.
> We built an incredible industrial and commercial base to support and profit from the war.
Doesn't this conflict with the teachings of free trade? That other countries growing their industries and rebuilding themselves left the US worse off (if that is the reason)? If you buy that logic, then shouldn't you be very worried about moving production abroad?
Doesn't this conflict with the teachings of free trade? That other countries growing their industries and rebuilding themselves left the US worse off (if that is the reason)? If you buy that logic, then shouldn't you be very worried about moving production abroad?
Yes, globalization would be one of the main reasons the "good old days" are no longer achievable. Lifestyle is being globally normalized.
Note I keep putting "good" in quotes as a reference to the term. I'm not making a value judgement.
Note I keep putting "good" in quotes as a reference to the term. I'm not making a value judgement.
globalisation isn't a zero sum game. Rise of industry in developing nations didn't mean that some static output shifted around. Only a relatively small percentage (about 15% or so according to most research) of job loss is attributable to globalisation, and it isn't the jobs that were responsible for the 'good old times', but rather the very worst, environmentally damaging manufacturing.
Gains in productivity and corresponding automation account for the lion's share of job loss.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs...
Gains in productivity and corresponding automation account for the lion's share of job loss.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs...
Globalization might be negative sum, when accounting for the lower marginal utility of monetary wealth captured by a few super wealthy capital owners instead of the masses of laborers
Deep welfare losses, along with effects on labor supply, health care spending, and asset accumulation indicate that this large population segment has not enjoyed the fruits of broad economic health.
It feels we need to do a better job quantifying this problem before we come up with a solution. For example (1) how much money would it take to fix health care? (2) how much money would it take to fix welfare? (3) what is the impact of low savings rate on people's economic condition. For example appearance of credit cards coincides with the timeline in this article (4) How has immigration impacted unskilled workers? (5) Does UBI work? (6) How is Europe doing it? (7) Is Europe really as successful at dealing with these issues as everyone seems to claim?
It feels we need to do a better job quantifying this problem before we come up with a solution. For example (1) how much money would it take to fix health care? (2) how much money would it take to fix welfare? (3) what is the impact of low savings rate on people's economic condition. For example appearance of credit cards coincides with the timeline in this article (4) How has immigration impacted unskilled workers? (5) Does UBI work? (6) How is Europe doing it? (7) Is Europe really as successful at dealing with these issues as everyone seems to claim?
regarding (7), I am very interested in reading a nonpartisan take on the relationship between US defense spending and welfare spending in western europe. if it weren't for the current defensive arrangement with the US, would europe spend more on defense? if so, would it still spend the same on social services? do we americans overestimate our contribution to the defensive posture of the west?
> if it weren't for the current defensive arrangement with the US, would europe spend more on defense?
Europe is a lot of countries, the US-Europe alliance is old enough that there have been at least three or four distinct time periods where the answer to this question fluctuates (cold war, post cold war, post-9/11, post Syria)
Furthermore, defense is not some sort of measurable good; especially for countries in the EU who are surrounded by non-enemies, how much they choose to spend on defense is in large part a political question.
It's really hard to say e.g., whether Germans would have chosen to spend more on defense if the US decreased its defense spending in Europe. And the answer would probably be different in the different time periods I mentioned above. E.g., given the German attitude toward US military presence in Europe over the past 20 years [1], I suspect the answer for that period is "no".
But ultimately the answer to this question will be different from country to country and from decade to decade, and a truly nonpartisan answer would be "there's really no way to give a definitive answer for all of Europe across that time period.".
> do we americans overestimate our contribution to the defensive posture of the west?
Americans underestimate (or often simply don't even know about) their contribution to many of Europe's most pressing security and welfare expenditures. The 15 year war in the middle east is now taking an enormous economic and political toll on Europe.
It's not too far-fetched to say that Europe might have been both safer and richer today had the US spent substantially less money on its military over the past 15 years (read: not waged wars in the middle east).
[1] https://www.thelocal.de/20180711/almost-half-of-germans-want...
Europe is a lot of countries, the US-Europe alliance is old enough that there have been at least three or four distinct time periods where the answer to this question fluctuates (cold war, post cold war, post-9/11, post Syria)
Furthermore, defense is not some sort of measurable good; especially for countries in the EU who are surrounded by non-enemies, how much they choose to spend on defense is in large part a political question.
It's really hard to say e.g., whether Germans would have chosen to spend more on defense if the US decreased its defense spending in Europe. And the answer would probably be different in the different time periods I mentioned above. E.g., given the German attitude toward US military presence in Europe over the past 20 years [1], I suspect the answer for that period is "no".
But ultimately the answer to this question will be different from country to country and from decade to decade, and a truly nonpartisan answer would be "there's really no way to give a definitive answer for all of Europe across that time period.".
> do we americans overestimate our contribution to the defensive posture of the west?
Americans underestimate (or often simply don't even know about) their contribution to many of Europe's most pressing security and welfare expenditures. The 15 year war in the middle east is now taking an enormous economic and political toll on Europe.
It's not too far-fetched to say that Europe might have been both safer and richer today had the US spent substantially less money on its military over the past 15 years (read: not waged wars in the middle east).
[1] https://www.thelocal.de/20180711/almost-half-of-germans-want...
I think until France 4+ subs with atomics missils onboard are found and destroyed, EU is pretty safe from conquering even without the US.
Nukes only protect from catastrophe (if others think that your government is sane) because they're essentially a "fuck you, we all lose" button. If you reply to something with nukes, you get nuked too.
What this means in practice is that something like "Russia assassinated the leaders of France + Germany and conquered Poland in the ensuing chaos" isn't enough of a justification for France to use nukes. That's because the payoff matrix looks something like this:
Now, there are exceptions here! One is insane government leaders. It takes a special kind of person to light the world on fire because someone took their toy, but... no one takes that guy's toy. And so since they can credibly rule out column #2 above, they never leave column #1. The other exception then is when a sane government credibly precommits to the use of nuclear weapons in some situation. But it's rather hard for a liberal democracy to do this, and if France said that they'd kill Russia with nukes (and thus indirectly themselves, Poland, and everyone else) in response to Poland being invaded - well, I don't think I'd believe in their ability to follow through.
What this means in practice is that something like "Russia assassinated the leaders of France + Germany and conquered Poland in the ensuing chaos" isn't enough of a justification for France to use nukes. That's because the payoff matrix looks something like this:
peace * conventional war * nuclear war
France 10 * 5 * -10,000,000
Russia 5 * 10 * -10,000,000
Now, there are exceptions here! One is insane government leaders. It takes a special kind of person to light the world on fire because someone took their toy, but... no one takes that guy's toy. And so since they can credibly rule out column #2 above, they never leave column #1. The other exception then is when a sane government credibly precommits to the use of nuclear weapons in some situation. But it's rather hard for a liberal democracy to do this, and if France said that they'd kill Russia with nukes (and thus indirectly themselves, Poland, and everyone else) in response to Poland being invaded - well, I don't think I'd believe in their ability to follow through.
> In the abstract, you get this statement: "The drop in wages depressed the labor supply of men and increased that of women, especially in married couples."
Seems to get cause and effect backwards. Isn't it more likely that an increase in labor supply (women entering the workforce) had, simply by the laws of supply and demand, decreased wages?[1] [1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#one
The paper is full of complicated-looking economic models and nice graphs-- but if you don't get the basic assumptions right it's hard to trust the fancy models.
Seems to get cause and effect backwards. Isn't it more likely that an increase in labor supply (women entering the workforce) had, simply by the laws of supply and demand, decreased wages?[1] [1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#one
The paper is full of complicated-looking economic models and nice graphs-- but if you don't get the basic assumptions right it's hard to trust the fancy models.
These things are hard to think about.
A new worker (or 50 million new female workers) does on one end increase the supply of labor, which should lower the price (wages) of it, but s/he also starts spending an income, which increases general demand in the economy and acts to push up wages.
It's not obvious what the net effect is. Economists probably have a (or several :) well thought out and validated answers to this, but my gut feel is that it all evens out.
A new worker (or 50 million new female workers) does on one end increase the supply of labor, which should lower the price (wages) of it, but s/he also starts spending an income, which increases general demand in the economy and acts to push up wages.
It's not obvious what the net effect is. Economists probably have a (or several :) well thought out and validated answers to this, but my gut feel is that it all evens out.
I think it's necessary to look at it more in more detail. What did women stop doing to make time for work? What products and services had higher demand and which ones did not? In particular were they labor intensive goods or resource intensive goods or even zero sum goods?
I don't have the answers to these questions unfortunately.
I don't have the answers to these questions unfortunately.
Elizabeth Warren did a lot of research on the topic before going into politics. The bulk of the income went towards transportation, childcare, housing and medical care.
They stopped being mothers and outsourced that to public education. That is why kids now are brainwashed and dumber than previous generations. A generation of impressionable people to fuel capitalistic growth.
Social cohesion is down and communities are dying. The social fabric is being torn apart.
Social cohesion is down and communities are dying. The social fabric is being torn apart.
The assumption that lower wages depresses labour supply is a pretty good one. Supply curves slope upwards, i.e., if they pay you less, you work less.
The other point they make is that men's wages declined more than women's, which might explain why women are more likely to work. (Assume couples need to make $X per week in the labour market; when male wages drop, the tradeoff between male and female employment changes in favour of the latter.)
I agree that increasing labour supply would also decrease male wages.
The other point they make is that men's wages declined more than women's, which might explain why women are more likely to work. (Assume couples need to make $X per week in the labour market; when male wages drop, the tradeoff between male and female employment changes in favour of the latter.)
I agree that increasing labour supply would also decrease male wages.
Backward-bending supply curves, at the extreme limit.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/53mcxn/backwar...
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/53mcxn/backwar...
Economists dont need their models to work, they need people to think they are smart.
Imagine writing software that never had to work in the real world.
I at least have some formal training in economics to feel confident in making this statement.
Imagine writing software that never had to work in the real world.
I at least have some formal training in economics to feel confident in making this statement.
Exactly. More people entering the labor force was only good for the owners and employers, it destroy the bargaining power of the actual workers. Add to that the fact that having two parents at work seriously harms the family, making it more difficult for their children to develop in healthy ways. This is the future we asked for. Given the statistics that say women only want to marry men who make more money than them, it seems to have done even more harm than we might imagine, because there are few women wanting men to stay home and fill the role certain ideologues claimed would be open to them.
For a while, "services" employed more people. Then came cheap computing and the Internet. No more file clerks. Much less paper-pushing. Fewer retail salespeople. Fewer bank tellers. Both retail and finance are dropping in headcount.
That's what happened.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP