Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (24) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: dlbuffy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 445603  
Subject: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 11:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The start of this Ted Talk has some interesting information. While the economy is growing, jobs not so much. This election season has attempted to place all the blame on a person.

This talk suggests differently.

http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mcafee_are_droids_taking_our...

I tend to agree, that we are moving into a time when we won't be able to employ everyone. It just won't happen. We are making things so much more efficient, fewer people can meet all the needs of business. Every recession, every contraction has RAISED productivity. That means that fewer people needed to do the same work.

There is no way to reverse this as technology improves.

How do we deal with that?
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410403 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 11:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Every recession, every contraction has RAISED productivity. That means that fewer people needed to do the same work.
There is no way to reverse this as technology improves.
How do we deal with that?


If we didn't raise productivity we'd all still be spending our days staring at the rear end of a horse/mule/water buffalo while we plowed our fields and hauling our water in buckets from the well.

It used to be that 98% of the people in America were farmers. Now less than 2%. How did we deal with that?

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410404 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
How do we deal with that?

You ever see Logan's Run? Age limit of 30.

Or perhaps the world of Soylent Green (walled compounds of the elite, everyone else in squalor). Or perhaps Freejack (just the society, not the transplanting of consciousness bit).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dlbuffy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410442 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 3:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't know, how did we deal with it. I would posit that we invented new industries..so from farming to textiles to manufacturing to telecomunications to technology to internet....

...so for a while we had places for people to go. But we haven't revolutionized anything or allowed for a new technology. What we do have is either old school and on the decline, or established and in it's refining phase.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NailThatJello Big gold star, 5000 posts Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410447 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 4:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
we are moving into a time when we won't be able to employ everyone. How do we deal with that?

You're talking about the 47%. Mitt's already answered that question.

We just ignore them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410455 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 5:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
That means that fewer people needed to do the same work.

There is no way to reverse this as technology improves.

How do we deal with that?



Put people to work under government programs similar to the Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps. They could tear down houses in the ghettos, assist and mentor kids in schools, help take care of the elderly, clean up pollution, patrol the Mexican border, work on infrastructure projects, the list goes on and on.

I also think tax policies should heavily encourage hiring and maintaining jobs for AMERICANs. Yeah, you might be able to get a robot to do the job of a human, but if the financial incentives tilted a bit back in favor of hiring a human many employers would choose that option, at least some of the time.

And finally we need programs and incentives to get people to slow down the rate at which they shoot out new babies. Ideally, babies should only be born into circumstances where they can be well provided for and where they will have a good shot at a prosperous future.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410461 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 6:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Put people to work under government programs similar to the Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps.

Which would need to be paid by government, which would need revenues to pay for it, but for which revenues will be reduced because fewer people are paying income tax (since they have no income).

Think about it...if all those people really become unnecessary you could round them all up and shoot them, and it would have negligible effect on the economy. They're, in effect, dead weight. How do we deal with that (since shooting them is probably a bad idea!). Raise taxes on all the productive people to pay for them? At some point the burden will be too much. Without some paradigm shift, such as going from agriculture to manufacturing - then manufacturing to technology, we're going to have a lot of really angry/disenfranchised/desperate people. That's not a recipe for anything good.

I'm all for helping someone who has stumbled. But perpetual support just isn't practical, and is not something you could sell to most people.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JamesBrown Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410477 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 8:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
How do we deal with that?

Put people to work under government programs similar to the Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps. They could tear down houses in the ghettos, assist and mentor kids in schools, help take care of the elderly, clean up pollution, patrol the Mexican border, work on infrastructure projects, the list goes on and on.

Bill Clinton sez, Paint 'em white.

"Look at the tar roofs covering millions of American buildings. They absorb huge amounts of heat when it’s hot. And they require more air conditioning to cool the rooms. Mayor Bloomberg started a program to hire and train young people to paint New York’s roofs white. A big percentage of the kids have been able to parlay this simple work into higher-skilled training programs or energy-related retrofit jobs. (And, believe it or not, painting the roof white can lower the electricity use by 20 percent on a hot day!)

Every black roof in New York should be white; every roof in Chicago should be white; every roof in Little Rock should be white. Every flat tar-surface roof anywhere! In most of these places you could recover the cost of the paint and the labor in a week. It’s the quickest, cheapest thing you can do. In the current environment it’s been difficult for the mayors to get what is otherwise a piddling amount of money to do it everywhere. Yet lowering the utility bill in every apartment house 10 to 20 percent frees cash that can be spent to increase economic growth."


More here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/06/19/it-s-still-...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410479 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Every black roof in New York should be white; every roof in Chicago should be white; every roof in Little Rock should be white. Every flat tar-surface roof anywhere!

But not in the desert.

https://asunews.asu.edu/20120907_urbanheat_tradeoffs
Among the most practical ways to combat urbanization-induced warming – the painting of buildings' roofs white – was found to disrupt regional hydroclimate, highlighting the need for evaluation of tradeoffs associated with combating urban heat islands (UHI)....

“However, increased reflectivity also modifies hydroclimatic processes and, in the case of the ‘Sun Corridor,’ can lead to a significant reduction of rainfall. Our maximum Sun Corridor expansion scenario leads to a 12 percent reduction in rainfall, averaged across the entire state. Painting roofs white leads to an additional 4 percent reduction in rainfall.”

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410481 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 9:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Think about it...if all those people really become unnecessary you could round them all up and shoot them, and it would have negligible effect on the economy. They're, in effect, dead weight. How do we deal with that (since shooting them is probably a bad idea!). Raise taxes on all the productive people to pay for them? At some point the burden will be too much.


You pay for the unproductive either way, we might as well get some benefit from them by having them accomplish productive tasks. It need not be all for a net loss either. If a modern CCC was able to clear out blighted neighborhoods the land might then find use for industry or agriculture. For that matter, what about the lament of farmers that they can only hire illegals to pick fruit. Get some of the unproductive people picking fruit. What's stupid to me is to allow people to remain unproductive at taxpayer expense while farmers are forced to hire illegals.

Even if the unproductive paid half their way it would be a step in the right direction. But of course this flies in the face of the "small-government", "government can't create jobs", and "all government is bad" mindset. One thing is certain, the private sector will never tackle the problem.

And of course there are some who are capable of very little such as the elderly and those with disabilities. But even then if we were willing to think outside the box there could be some benefit, such as having the elderly assist with child care.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410482 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 10:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
At some point the burden will be too much.


Which is why I brought up the point about curtailing the birth rate, especially within populations that have poor economic prospects.

It may sound harsh and Orwell-ian, but the citizens of planet earth better start thinking through the fact that as productivity and efficiency increase, fewer people are needed. I would rather see people voluntarily start shrinking the population than the alternative.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410483 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/5/2012 10:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Which is why I brought up the point about curtailing the birthrate, especially within populations that have poor economic prospects.

I agree...this is why we should stop the wealthy from breeding....they actually cost our society more than they add to it with the ponzi schemes, shipping jobs overseas, needing government bailouts for their failed financial activities, government bailouts for their private equity firms, and of course the cost to our society from the Vampire Capitalism that they practice and the disaster they have made of our Democratic Government.

Sheesh just snip and tube tie all of them....they actually do little to nothing to make our society livable or progressive.

md (We really should stop our Welfare for the Wealthy)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410486 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 1:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Solar panels are better. They absorb the energy and convert it to electricity. They still shade the roof, but they do not reflect the energy back into the air the way white paint does.

Also, I would think in winter that places like Chicago might want black roofs to reduce their heating costs (or maybe there's a permanent blanket of snow so it doesn't matter??).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410487 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 1:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What's stupid to me is to allow people to remain unproductive at taxpayer expense while farmers are forced to hire illegals.

I do not disagree. However, that is seriously hard work. And, frankly, most Americans would be unwilling to do it. That old Puritan work ethic died some time ago. (Being married to 1poorlady I have a different perspective on this...she's shocked at how lazy we are...nearly everyone she works with today would be fired in the Philippines, so she says).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410491 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 8:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Solar panels are better.

But a lot more expensive than white paint. :-)

I would think in winter that places like Chicago might want black roofs to reduce their heating costs

Because the sun is at a low angle during the winter the effect is much less than in the summer.

Unfortunately, the mass effect of white roofs is not as effective as with an individual building because the reflected sunlight still warms the urban area, creating a larger, warmer urban heat island.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PucksFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410493 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 1:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Unfortunately, the mass effect of white roofs is not as effective as with an individual building because the reflected sunlight still warms the urban area, creating a larger, warmer urban heat island.

Well that certainly explains the balmy temperatures during antarctic summers.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science...

PF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410494 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 3:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Unfortunately, the mass effect of white roofs is not as effective as with an individual building because the reflected sunlight still warms the urban area, creating a larger, warmer urban heat island.
---
Well that certainly explains the balmy temperatures during antarctic summers.


Not many roofs in Antarctica. :-)

No, the idea is that while a white roof will keep your building cooler, the total benefit for a city is less than the sum of the individual buildings. Anytime you can see a roof, either from street level or from another building, the reflected light carries some energy. A white roof reflects more light and thus more energy to surrounding surfaces (and clouds).

In addition, there is some modeling the indicates there is little benefit for global warming; other work indicates the opposite. I would guess the reduction in cloudiness is related to the reduction in precipitation noted earlier in the thread.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/su-ui101811.p...
One "geoengineering" proposal for reducing the impact of urban heat islands is to paint roofs worldwide a reflective white. Jacobson's computer modeling concluded that white roofs did indeed cool urban surfaces. However, they caused a net global warming, largely because they reduced cloudiness slightly by increasing the stability of the air, thereby reducing the vertical transport of moisture and energy to clouds. In Jacobson's modeling, the reduction in cloudiness allowed more sunlight to reach the surface.

The increased sunlight reflected back into the atmosphere by white roofs in turn increased absorption of light by dark pollutants such as black carbon, which further increased heating of the atmosphere.

Jacobson's study did not examine one potential benefit of white roofs – a reduced demand for electricity to run air conditioning in hot weather. But a recent study done at the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed that the decrease in air conditioning use, which occurs mostly in the summer, might be more than offset by increases in heating during winter months.


DB2

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: LorenCobb Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410495 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 3:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
dlbuffy: ... we are moving into a time when we won't be able to employ everyone. It just won't happen. We are making things so much more efficient, fewer people can meet all the needs of business. Every recession, every contraction has RAISED productivity. That means that fewer people needed to do the same work.

There is no way to reverse this as technology improves. How do we deal with that?


I first became aware of this question when I read Player Piano, by Kurt Vonnegut. Now there was a real dystopia!

But of course Vonnegut was not the first to wonder about this. Back in 1811-12 the "Luddites" of Nottingham, England, went on an infamous anti-machine rampage. They were specifically protesting the introduction of wide-frame automated looms that could be operated by unskilled labor, thus throwing out of work thousands upon thousands of skilled textile weavers who had been using handlooms. Such was their fame (or infamy) that to this day anti-mechanization movements are known as Luddites.

Ned Ludd, for whom the Luddites were named, was apparently a mentally-retarded young man who, in 1779, was whipped for idleness. In response, he smashed two knitting frames in his place of employment, a weavery. Thereafter, whenever frames were sabotaged it was said that "Ned Ludd did it" -- regardless of the motivation of the perpetrator.

Poor Ned Ludd was hardly the first person to take out his anger on a machine. Hints and brief mentions in history go back at least to 1733, when the invention of the flying shuttle meant that a weaver no longer needed a full-time assistant.

In any event, all predictions of an end to the need for labor have, so far, proven vacuous. It seems that sooner or later someone always comes up with some new want or desire, which creates new demand for employment. Old forms of employment, especially agriculture, fade out while new ones take their place.

If all the world's food and tangible goods were manufactured by machines, we would still have employment, in the seemingly infinitely-expandable service and entertainment industries. All that is required is (a) plenty of economic surplus from the use of energy and machines, and (b) normal human desires for something new and interesting.

"Socialism" of that distant future is likely to include the idea that society as a whole should either own or control all means of agricultural and industrial production, even when no living beings are involved in that production. "Capitalism" is likely to apply to all those economic endeavors undertaken by humans, overwhelmingly in service and entertainment. I can imagine that debates over where to draw the line will be just as intense in the future as they are now.

There really is nothing whatsoever in economics that requires production to be "manned" by human beings. The economy is still an economy, even if industrial and agricultural production is 100% automated. Given enough energy and technology, there is absolutely no necessity for mass unemployment -- unless we choose to organize our society in that way.

The choice is ours.

Loren

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410497 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Unfortunately, the mass effect of white roofs is not as effective as with an individual building because the reflected sunlight still warms the urban area, creating a larger, warmer urban heat island.

A better solution, perhaps...pipe water through the black roofs. The water carries the heat away (so no increase in the urban heat sink), and you can use the warmer water for your shower or whatever.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410498 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Or even better...and I read about this once a few years ago...

Put landscaping on the roofs. Grass/trees absorb much of the incoming radiation. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon approach!

Someone out there is doing it, I just don't remember where.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PucksFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410503 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/6/2012 6:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Green roofs are in use in many cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_roof

PF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dlbuffy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410516 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/7/2012 11:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
In any event, all predictions of an end to the need for labor have, so far, proven vacuous. It seems that sooner or later someone always comes up with some new want or desire, which creates new demand for employment. Old forms of employment, especially agriculture, fade out while new ones take their place.

And here is where the recent trend in America has me a bit worried. Everything in politics and corporations seems designed and legislated to maintain the status quo. Big oil wants to be the only power source, big farms want to be the only food source, etc, etc. Yet they also want more profits so they are making their businesses as efficient as possible.

Listen to the right rage against all investments in green energy. That would be a great new source for jobs, possibly more than oil as the start up of new industry is always inefficient.

How about all the demeaning and cost cutting at NASA and exploration. I still feel that a lot of good would come from focusing on space so that we can save some of what is left of this planet.

It's as if we are legislating out all chances at disruptive technology coming along. Or am I missing some perspective?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrBob2 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410518 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/7/2012 1:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's as if we are legislating out all chances at disruptive technology coming along.

One of the most disruptive technologies of late is fracking, changing the energy production, manufacturing and geopolitical equations here in the United States and other parts of the world. It appears to be making some headway.

DB2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 410520 of 445603
Subject: Re: Lost jobs, looking at wrong thing? Date: 10/7/2012 4:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's as if we are legislating out all chances at disruptive technology coming along. Or am I missing some perspective?

This has always been the way. When radio came along, the nascent record business didn't want their products played on radio, and leaned heavily on congress to restrict the practice by changing copyright laws.

Every industry and trade union, going back to Adam Smith, has wanted legislative changes to guarantee their place and profits. Or has attempted to do so by means of avoiding competition in the marketplace, whether legal or not.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (24) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement