EPTThe Free World Charter - Page 40
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Rewera
Poland354 Posts
| ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
| ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:07 DeliCiousVP wrote: Im glad you all think so feel free to start using this formula så we can all communicate faster and more efficent. i was responding to a question of what is considered reasonable. I cant be held responsible from what you feel is implied i can only express what i meant. I seem to recall asking you to point to an economist that supports your views. You seemed to be responding with that for some bizarre reason. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:00 DeliCiousVP wrote: No, that is not what i mean. Factory has workers>100>Company has investors>Investors demand profit>CEO Looks into option to increase profitability>CEO automate factory>80 workers obsolete>Productivity raised profit increased> Technological unemoployment creates 80 unemployed being. Goverment reacts>To hinder unrest and discontent desperatly tries to stimulate job growth>Mild success> 10%> Social security hammering out money to squal disconent. Nothing so please do that, and if you already have please repeat. You never gave me the info!!!!! An entire book where you *promise* a real study is included *somewhere* within is not what I'm asking for!! | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:00 DeliCiousVP wrote: No, that is not what i mean. Factory has workers>100>Company has investors>Investors demand profit>CEO Looks into option to increase profitability>CEO automate factory>80 workers obsolete>Productivity raised profit increased> Technological unemoployment creates 80 unemployed being. Goverment reacts>To hinder unrest and discontent desperatly tries to stimulate job growth>Mild success> 10%> Social security hammering out money to squal disconent. Nothing so please do that, and if you already have please repeat. Can you provide specific examples instead of spouting off unsubstantiated statements? No company wants to remove workers if they can help it. If you're reasoning was right, then the wealthiest companies would have really low counts of labor...and we'll, they don't. edit: You also might want to stop linking the Zeteigeist videos. The Venus Project broke from them and deems them as not representing their interests/goals. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:00 DeliCiousVP wrote: No, that is not what i mean. Factory has workers>100>Company has investors>Investors demand profit>CEO Looks into option to increase profitability>CEO automate factory>80 workers obsolete>Productivity raised profit increased> Technological unemoployment creates 80 unemployed being. That's short run unemployment not long run unemployment. Do you understand the difference or do you need me to give you data to prove you wrong? | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:21 DeliCiousVP wrote: You guys belive :D Companies wanna hold labourerors and pay pensions? when they can maximise profits. Now im gonna sit back and wait for an actual question and if you already asked one please repeat it. And if you start your question with prove it you already jumped to step three before doing step one. Of course they want to automate! Of course creating new efficiencies means more profits! BUT THAT DOES NOT LEAD TO LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:21 DeliCiousVP wrote: You guys belive :D Companies wanna hold labourerors and pay pensions? when they can maximise profits. Now im gonna sit back and wait for an actual question and if you already asked one please repeat it. And if you start your question with prove it you already jumped to step three before doing step one. Makes you wonder why Walmart has 2 million employees. Just think, if they fired everyone except the board and the CEO they would all be rich! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
I have asked many times for proof that any of your nonsense is actually real. All you have done is post YouTube videos and links to where I can buy entire books. I'm looking for real examples of research. An example of real research is the following: http://healy.econ.ohio-state.edu/papers/Georganas_Healy_Li-InflationExperiment.pdf If you cannot give real examples of real research than you are full of crap. Last chance to prove yourself. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:21 DeliCiousVP wrote: You guys belive :D Companies wanna hold labourerors and pay pensions? when they can maximise profits. Now im gonna sit back and wait for an actual question and if you already asked one please repeat it. And if you start your question with prove it you already jumped to step three before doing step one. Can you point to a published economist that you feel supports your world view? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think economic theory is unable to support your views? Do you think your view has a foundation in economic theory or is it simply a political ideology? From the many factual and technical errors in your writing, I suspect you have not studied economics in any sort of detail. Am I wrong? If not, why not? | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Of course they want to automate! Of course creating new efficiencies means more profits! BUT THAT DOES NOT LEAD TO LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is actually not completely implausible. If society changes fundamentally so that there no longer is a deman for unskilled labor then a certain portion of people doing unskilled labor, those that are unable to learn more advanced skills, would become structurally unemployed. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On May 08 2012 06:44 DeliCiousVP wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation For anyone more intressted in learning about automation and technological unemployment there are also books on this.And econimists writing about it in the wiki page aswel. Technological unemployment has through most of history been a natural shift towards other sectors this is the first time in human history where that shift is trasncending out of the monetary system. Sorry but linking that is akin to me linking this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God Cool, I just proved that God exists cuz there is a description about it on wiki? We want actual facts that proves that technology causes unemployment rate to go up. For example: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=16 Unemployment rate of Canada on the official Canadian government human resource website. This clearly shows that Unemployment rate, if anything went down in the last 20 years. Next example: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 Unemployment rate of USA. It went up by less than 3% since 10 years ago, this could simply due to random fluctuation or period of recession, or many many other factors that are totally unrelated to technology. Fact of the matter is, you have still yet to prove that Technology has direct negative relationship to Employment rate. (and have yet to provide facts about 908230493 of your other claims) | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:30 Crushinator wrote: This is actually not completely implausible. If society changes fundamentally so that there no longer is a deman for unskilled labor then a certain portion of people doing unskilled labor, those that are unable to learn more advanced skills, would become structurally unemployed. That is false, because you're assuming our basic education remains the same, but the fact of the matter is, it grows with technology. For example, 20 years ago, you actually have to be trained to know how to operate a computer. But as computer technology increased over the last 10-20 years, so have our education. And now, most elementary student knows how to operate the basics of a computer, and most graduated high-school student can operate most of the computer functions needed for most jobs. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:36 Fubi wrote: That is false, because you're assuming our basic education remains the same, but the fact of the matter is, it grows with technology. For example, 20 years ago, you actually have to be trained to know how to operate a computer. But as computer technology increased over the last 10-20 years, so have our education. And now, most elementary student knows how to operate the basics of a computer, and most graduated high-school student can operate most of the computer functions needed for most jobs. I am not assuming anything of the sort. Fact of the matter is, a (probably small) fraction of people are going to be unable perform anything but the most basic tasks. As these tasks become increasingly automated, gradually more and more people will be unfit for employement. I've done unskilled labor, I'm pretty confident some of my co-workers would not be able to learn much more. Edit: I am not saying it is evident that it will happen, just that it isn't an implausible hypothesis for the distant future. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? Luckily, since there is no evidence at all that your statement is true, there is little reason to answer your question. | ||
|
Beorning
United States243 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PDA0Q.gif) | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html Yes, we create that food, but a huge percentage of it goes to feeding animals. (This is literally right there in the opening paragraphs.) Were we not to feed those animals, we would not get food from them and thus overall food production would be lower. It's beside the point though, because the difficulty has always been transportating and preserving the food. Sure we can produce 1000000000 hotdogs in New Mexico or something, but if we can't get them to Africa without spoiling, then it doesn't really work. Also, where is your evidence regarding job creation? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html Job creation IS keeping up with technological unemployment. That's why the unemployment rate has not increased along with new technology. Thanks to the link that proves a data point (food production) no one disagreed with. | ||
| ||
