Does not mean
You can agree to disagree, or agree to agree
I don’t think you can disagree to agree or disagree to disagree, but tricking the other guy into thinking you are objectively correct might work to trick them into agreeing to agree, but I doubt it in this case
You do know how science works? It moves forward.
No one asked what you think. Can we agree on that?
Obama style
YES WE CAN
Peace
I agree, it isn’t magical - it doesn’t translate into instant success. You can’t run government exactly like a business.
But - leaders in business know how to get things done by arranging a mutual benefit, which is what we need right now in government. Think about Congress - let’s say a good chunk of Republicans and a good chunk of Democrats in the House supported a bill and wanted to pass it, and they had enough votes together to pass it. That legislation wouldn’t even get to the floor for a vote - because of the so-called Hastert rule that both Republican and Democrat leaders enforce.
Business-types know the value of those “win-wins” in a way that professional partisans don’t.
Again, I generally agree with you - but business leaders can’t afford to be uncompromising partisans in their day job, else their profits will go up in smoke. I’d like to see more people who know how to get things done in imperfect conditions serve.
(And not just business leaders. Also nurses. And teachers. Etc.)
Or creating the illusion of mutual benefit.
But they can afford to be unprincipled, because, it’s just business.
Absolutely moronic idea that appeals to the least educated people of society.
Let’s say you give everyone $2K a month, prices then adjust upwards as the purchasing power per monetary unit declines by a proportionate amount. Wealth increases only happen with increases in productive capacity, not by handing out money to people. You’re effectively subsidizing inefficiency, when you subsidize something you get more of it.
I can’t believe anyone over the age of 7 could even entertain this crap.
More robots?
Not necessarily, increased capital goods made possible by savings to lengthen the process of production will increase the discounted marginal value product of labor. Wages are paid based upon this.
To robots?
The workers have increased purchasing power monetary unit, the robots increase this because capital goods increase productive capacity. Automation doesn’t result in job loss, it’s job displacement.
Now that’s the way to start a convincing argument
Yeah as automation has risen so have wages…well the wages of a few people at least! It will all trickle down one day and the poor people will drown in it!
I’m calling a spade a spade, if you read under that you’d see I provide sound economic reasoning.
You’re right, H_factor. I’ve got a solution. Let’s ban cargo trains and instead have people carry packages on their backs, that way nobody is displaced due to trains. But why stop there? Let’s ban cars, because then we could employ more horse and buggy drivers, and then we’d have more employment for vets specializing in horses, too. We can ban lawn mowers so people can be employed to get on their hands and knees to cut grass with scissors. Down with automation!
Capital goods make labor more productive, labor is paid based upon its discounted marginal value product. The guy digging a ditch with a shovel has a lower discounted marginal value product compared with the guy using a machine. Therefore his wages are higher compared with the guy using the shovel. With his higher wages combined with an increased output of goods and services, his standard of living (purchasing power) increases significantly. He has more disposable income left over after expenses, meaning he can save more, these savings are used to lengthen the process of production, processes which require the scarcest factor of production, labor, and in turn creates more employment at higher wages.
From your article:
“The rise in economic inequality in the U.S. is tied to several factors. These include, in no particular order, technological change, globalization, the decline of unions and the eroding value of the minimum wage. Whatever the causes, the uninterrupted increase in inequality since 1980 has caused concern among members of the public, researchers, policymakers and politicians.”
Laughable.
That sounds good but it means nothing. If a robot takes your job, you could argue that the job was not lost, it was taken by someone (or something) else. But a person did lose his job. Someone is now unemployed. So you might want to define “job loss.”
And what’s displacement? Is it someone who was working a union job manufacturing cars, who had insurance, a pension plan and other benefits, can now work at Walmart and get foodstamps?
Now we know where you are really coming from.
Again, you’re looking at the first order effects and nothing beyond.
Stop appealing to emotion and learn to make an economic argument, learn to look beyond the first order effects of something.
job loss
so you can buy stuff on a Walmart salary (and still get foodstamps)
Thanks to job loss
For the people who no longer work there?
Which the people who lost their jobs will need.
Yeah, a safe work environment, overtime pay, sick days, etc. was never part of their agenda.
Isn’t that what you are doing?
