The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Bonds & Fixed Income Investments


Subject:  Re: OT: Man in the White Suit Date:  2/14/2009  8:10 PM
Author:  Goofyhoofy Number:  25974 of 35924

Let's take a real world example. 15 years ago, it took considerable clerical staff work to put together a university course syllabus, process book orders for courses, etc. Now most faculty do this themselves and post the syllabus on line. So (ignoring the union), the need for clerical staff has been reduced by about 75%. Now, it does turn out that there is a need for IT support, which is new (but as computing has become more self-sufficient, we need fewer IT staff than a few years ago). So for every 3 clerical staff no longer needed, we maybe need 1 IT person.

But that one IT person has to buy cables and plugs and all kinds of things which didn't exist previously. And the companies which sell those things need people to answer the phones and send out bills and all the rest. The IT people buy computers from Dell, and that means more jobs for people stuffing boxes, and UPS deliveries, and a host of other things up and down the food chain.

People have been complaining about this for centuries, literally, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. "Oh No! It only takes 1 man to farm what 10 used to! What will the other 9 do?" Well, they'll go to the city to factories and make things.

"Oh no! Those assembly lines let 10 people do what 100 used to! What will the other 90 do?" Well, they'll get jobs building shopping malls or theaters or they'll manage fast food restaurants or something.

The quest for "efficiency" means making more stuff for cheaper. That means more people can afford them, which makes even the poorer segment of our society vastly richer than the well-to-do were just a few generations ago. Seriously, our "poor" have cars and color TV's and (sometimes) iPods and microwave ovens.

As has been demonstrated by the most obscenely rich, you can (apparently) never have "enough", and that goes for every segment of society. So I'm not worried that commerce will grind to a halt because everybody says "OK, I have everything I want", because people always want more.


That doesn't mean that the market is kind, or that the process is smooth, or that some people don't get hurt, sometimes badly, along the way. It's one of the reasons I (and others) argue for a safety net. Frankly, it's also one of the reasons I argue for policies which produce a wider middle class. Raising the tent pole extremely high in the center doesn't produce much ground coverage at all. Raise a lot of lower poles around the circumference and you suddenly have a tent under which you can fit great crowds and where everybody benefits - including the guy with the tallest pole.

Once quality medical record and billing programs are really available (the current ones are overpriced and suck), much medical clerical staff will be unnecessary. As people become more comfortable shopping on line, as we saw this Christmas, local shops will disappear (and shipping jobs will not pick up the slack).

And cars now last 150,000 miles and you don't need to buy new tires at 20,000 miles and washing machines last longer, but that hasn't been the end of tire makers or washing machine manufacture or even of car makers. They've moved to different locales, now, but then that's nothing new; we used to import granite from England rather than quarry it in Vermont in Thomas Jefferson's time. With cheaper transport comes "more efficiency" and jobs move. The Erie Canal dropped the