[kenrexford]

 akwoo, on 2016-August-22, 18:53, said:

I think it's important to realize the pigeonhole principle applies at numbers other than 0.

What I mean is that, if we have 20 million people who are only able to acquire marketable skills A, B, C, D, and E, and only 10 million jobs using A, B, C, D, and E, we still have a problem, even if everyone can acquire a marketable skill.

This is a simple idea, but it's much harder to figure out if we have this problem than to figure out if anyone has no marketable skills at all.



The problem isn't paying people to earn an income, but paying people to earn an income that is enough for them to afford basic food and shelter. If a person can only contribute $.10 per hour of work, we have a problem even though their contribution is positive.

my guess is that you live in a large metropolitan area. This is a common problem in my experience with assessing things. People who do not live in large metropolitan areas can live fairly well on $10 an hour. Not Great by any means but okay. There is often a miscalculation by people who live in metropolitan areas on what is a living wage.

[awm]

A few comments on Ken Rexford's posts:

Economy: It's true that it makes sense to have a different minimum wage in different regions. Hillary Clinton said this in a debate. The fundamental question is whether we should have a minimum wage at all, and whether it should be a wage that adults can live on. Democrats answer in the affirmative. Trump has been on all sides of the issue, saying he'd consider raising the minimum wage at one point, and that we should eliminate it at another point. As for trade, I agree that trade deals have been better for big corporations than for the working class and that we can do better. But is starting a trade war with China really the answer? Last time we put up high tariffs it helped start the great depression! And why do we think Trump knows anything about international trade, which he seems to view solely in terms of whether it's good for him (recall his Brexit speech about how the devaluation of the British pound was great because it would draw more people to his golf course).

Safety/Security: I think we all want to feel safe. But if we look at the statistics, compare the number of deaths from firearms vs. from terrorism in the US. We have about 3400 deaths from terrorism since 2001 (3000 of which were on 9/11/01). We have about 30,000 gun deaths every year. You and your kids are far more likely to be killed by a white christian with a gun than by an "islamic terrorist." Hillary Clinton wants to do something about these gun deaths, Donald Trump doesn't. Who's improving safety and security now? Besides that, most of the post-9/11 terrorist attacks in the US have been by citizens. It's not people coming over here to kill -- it's people who've lived here for years (often grown up here) and then decide to become terrorists. "Extreme vetting" is all well and good, but I don't know what vetting you use to figure out if people's unborn children might be radicalized later in life. It's basically just glorified racial/religious discrimination. Besides, a refugee visa is one of the toughest and best-vetted ways to get into the US; far easier to come in on a student visa or tourist visa if you're trying to perpetrate a terrorist attack. Or sneak over that huge and porous Canadian border (you know, the one Trump doesn't want a wall over -- as racism rears its ugly head again).

Character: A president will have to deal with some tough situations; just look how much its aged each of the recent occupants of the job. He or she will have to deal with a lot of tough people, from foreign leaders to corporate leaders to members of the opposing party. We need someone who can be diplomatic and serious. Does Trump really strike you as such a person? Trump has no sense of patriotism, loyalty, respect -- just look at his personal life (three divorces), his business history (only worked for someone else one time: when his casino company went public, and his investors lost everything while he somehow came out ahead), the things he says about women and mexicans and the disabled, his attacks on prisoners of war, on gold star parents, on reporters. He dodged the draft in Vietnam (and he was male in a time when few women served, and old enough). He said he would give money to veterans and he didn't. The man lies with basically every word out of his mouth -- Trump University is just a giant lie. His ratings on politifact.com are horrendous, far worse than any serious person of either party. He proposes no detailed plans, he changes his mind about everything (abortion, the minimum wage, his tax plan, what he thinks of the Clintons, basically every position he holds). He's your basic rich racist asshole -- why would any reasonable person vote for a guy like that? Even if you like some of his positions, there's no reason to think he has the political skills to get them passed, or the honesty to even hold to them once elected. And it's this issue (character) that makes some of us really terrified.

When Bush won in 2000 and again in 2004, I wasn't happy but I didn't seriously consider leaving the country. If McCain had won in 2008 or Romney in 2012 it would've been much the same. But if Trump wins in 2016 I'm seriously leaving; my wife and I are Jewish (by descent, not belief) and we know not to stick around when the nazis come to power.

[mike777]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 18:26, said:

All of this of course makes no sense. There is no way that an economy cannot afford to pay people to work to earn an income but has the ability to afford to use the profits of companies to pay people to not work. It simply cannot be. The only way that would make sense is if a worker actually cost more harm by working than he does not working. Obviously there's something off in the calculations.

KenR, you raise the obvious question, I only have the obvious answer, taxes in some form or other or borrow against future generations. A world where commodity costs fall close to zero. Of course this future vision assumes robots work for close to nothing so labor costs fall.

iMAGINE A world where you as someone hiring a lawyer has a labor and other costs close to zero....Ok a fantasy.....in your case but you see my point....


Even if we look at the world today, I am going to make a guess that most costs in criminal law concern something called "Discovery". Reduce this cost to close to zero and the rest follows. The rest of the costs ARE in your personal knowledge and experience that robots at this point are unable to replicate. YOUR PASSION AS MY ADVOCATE!


Having gone to law school myself(not a practicing lawyer) and growing up and currently living in a family of lawyers my biggest concern about the profession has always been can I find a lawyer to be my zealous advocate and not one who spends time flirting with the girls and worries about water rings on his expensive lawyer table(true stories) .

[mike777]

 awm, on 2016-August-22, 19:56, said:

A few comments on Ken Rexford's posts:

Economy: It's true that it makes sense to have a different minimum wage in different regions. Hillary Clinton said this in a debate. The fundamental question is whether we should have a minimum wage at all, and whether it should be a wage that adults can live on. Democrats answer in the affirmative. Trump has been on all sides of the issue, saying he'd consider raising the minimum wage at one point, and that we should eliminate it at another point. As for trade, I agree that trade deals have been better for big corporations than for the working class and that we can do better. But is starting a trade war with China really the answer? Last time we put up high tariffs it helped start the great depression! And why do we think Trump knows anything about international trade, which he seems to view solely in terms of whether it's good for him (recall his Brexit speech about how the devaluation of the British pound was great because it would draw more people to his golf course).

Safety/Security: I think we all want to feel safe. But if we look at the statistics, compare the number of deaths from firearms vs. from terrorism in the US. We have about 3400 deaths from terrorism since 2001 (3000 of which were on 9/11/01). We have about 30,000 gun deaths every year. You and your kids are far more likely to be killed by a white christian with a gun than by an "islamic terrorist." Hillary Clinton wants to do something about these gun deaths, Donald Trump doesn't. Who's improving safety and security now? Besides that, most of the post-9/11 terrorist attacks in the US have been by citizens. It's not people coming over here to kill -- it's people who've lived here for years (often grown up here) and then decide to become terrorists. "Extreme vetting" is all well and good, but I don't know what vetting you use to figure out if people's unborn children might be radicalized later in life. It's basically just glorified racial/religious discrimination. Besides, a refugee visa is one of the toughest and best-vetted ways to get into the US; far easier to come in on a student visa or tourist visa if you're trying to perpetrate a terrorist attack. Or sneak over that huge and porous Canadian border (you know, the one Trump doesn't want a wall over -- as racism rears its ugly head again).

Character: A president will have to deal with some tough situations; just look how much its aged each of the recent occupants of the job. He or she will have to deal with a lot of tough people, from foreign leaders to corporate leaders to members of the opposing party. We need someone who can be diplomatic and serious. Does Trump really strike you as such a person? Trump has no sense of patriotism, loyalty, respect -- just look at his personal life (three divorces), his business history (only worked for someone else one time: when his casino company went public, and his investors lost everything while he somehow came out ahead), the things he says about women and mexicans and the disabled, his attacks on prisoners of war, on gold star parents, on reporters. He dodged the draft in Vietnam (and he was male in a time when few women served, and old enough). He said he would give money to veterans and he didn't. The man lies with basically every word out of his mouth -- Trump University is just a giant lie. His ratings on politifact.com are horrendous, far worse than any serious person of either party. He proposes no detailed plans, he changes his mind about everything (abortion, the minimum wage, his tax plan, what he thinks of the Clintons, basically every position he holds). He's your basic rich racist asshole -- why would any reasonable person vote for a guy like that? Even if you like some of his positions, there's no reason to think he has the political skills to get them passed, or the honesty to even hold to them once elected. And it's this issue (character) that makes some of us really terrified.

When Bush won in 2000 and again in 2004, I wasn't happy but I didn't seriously consider leaving the country. If McCain had won in 2008 or Romney in 2012 it would've been much the same. But if Trump wins in 2016 I'm seriously leaving; my wife and I are Jewish (by descent, not belief) and we know not to stick around when the nazis come to power.

Adam you left out important information. Just for starters we spend trillions, yes trillionS iN stopping terroristS from killing me.! You make me go through huge hassels to stopping Muslim jihadists from killing me.

Now take away those trillions and hassels how many Americans die? You dont say.

Those trillions are resources that could go for education, health care, etc.


SEE SWEDEN, FINLND, DENMARK....ETC
------------------------------


i THINK YOUR comment on what the PResident has to deal with is too gentle. Mr. Obama's job is to deal with the most difficult decisions, the easy ones his staff deals with.

[kenrexford]

Economics. We are already in a trade war. We are the only ones not shooting. We are not shooting because we are the economic equivalent to Vichy France. Our manufacturing towns appear as destroyed as if bombs had hit the factories.

Safety. Gun control is not stopping anything. Broken down urban areas is definitely more of a problem than terrorism. I don't think that means that we only solve one problem. We can work on solving all problems.

Character. Have you seen the Clinton Cash movie? Have you heard about the lies from Hillary? Characters definitely not Hillary's strong suit either.

[akwoo]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 18:59, said:

my guess is that you live in a large metropolitan area. This is a common problem in my experience with assessing things. People who do not live in large metropolitan areas can live fairly well on $10 an hour. Not Great by any means but okay. There is often a miscalculation by people who live in metropolitan areas on what is a living wage.

You missed a decimal point. I wrote $.10 an hour, not $10 an hour. That was not a typo.

Re: trade wars. I fail to realize how poor Bangledeshis is any improvement over poor Americans.

[awm]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 21:19, said:

Economics. We are already in a trade war. We are the only ones not shooting. We are not shooting because we are the economic equivalent to Vichy France. Our manufacturing towns appear as destroyed as if bombs had hit the factories.

We're in a trade competition, and we are losing because we have higher wages, higher safety standards, higher environmental standards, and some very stupid provisions in our tax code. Bernie Sanders wanted to renegotiate these deals, which seems like a good idea. Hillary Clinton has adopted Bernie's position, which she will hopefully stick to (but no guarantees). Trump wants to dump all our trade agreements and put up walls (both physical and in terms of taxes). This will be an utter disaster for US business and consumers, and has basically never worked.

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 21:19, said:

Safety. Gun control is not stopping anything. Broken down urban areas is definitely more of a problem than terrorism. I don't think that means that we only solve one problem. We can work on solving all problems.

What gun control? We have no gun control in this country. The number of gun deaths was less when assault weapons were illegal. It went down in Australia when they enacted strict gun laws. It's much less in countries in Europe with serious gun restrictions. I don't see your evidence that gun control doesn't work. And the methods under serious consideration (like extending current gun laws to "gun shows" and requiring background checks and not letting people on the terrorist watch list buy guns) don't really threaten gun ownership rights. On the other hand, I see little evidence that banning Syrian refugees from the country will reduce terrorism (exactly zero attacks in this country have been by refugees) or that threatening to kill or torture terrorists' families will reduce attacks (in fact human rights abuses like Abu Graib are often blamed for helping terrorists recruit) or that building a wall on our southern border will reduce attacks (when exactly zero of the attacks were by people who got in that way).

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 21:19, said:

Character. Have you seen the Clinton Cash movie? Have you heard about the lies from Hillary? Characters definitely not Hillary's strong suit either.

Clinton is a typical politician. She exaggerates and bends the truth, she has probably done a few unsavory things on her way to power and had some shady business deals. If you can't tell the difference between this and a man who has made a career out of scamming people (from his investors to the "marks" at his casinos to the students at Trump university); between Hillary and a man who can scarcely speak for ten minutes without repeating already-debunked lies, between a woman who has worked her whole career to help women and children and the poor and a man who wants to ban large groups of people from our country, I can't help you.

Trump wants to round up and deport eleven million people -- and when most US citizens don't carry proof of citizenship, how far can this be from ethnic cleansing? Trump wants to ban a religion from this country, and surveille their religious sites -- can pogroms be far behind? Trump has stated that if he loses it will be because the election's fixed, and has suggested that if Clinton wins then the "second amendment people" should do something about her -- can a violent coup be far behind? This is seriously the guy you want for president? Have you even listened to one of his speeches?

I understand that an "outsider" might be appealing, but do you really want this outsider? Hillary will basically be Obama's third team. Has Obama been so bad for this country? Sure there are things he could've done better or different -- but at least he managed to keep us out of a nuclear war and kept us from opening concentration camps. I have no faith that Trump (who has already suggested that we should give nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, and has already endorsed "rounding up" Mexicans, a group which apparently includes a federal judge born in Indiana just because of his ancestry) will do the same.

[mike777]

1) We are winning in trade not losing...sigh if you want to discuss stats lets look at all the stats.......Trade makes us strong, not weak.
2) No gun control....sigh silly comment
3) Pointing at bad behavior to justify bad behavior is juvenile


not that I think Trump is worthy to be President but these arguments become silly.


I dont see posters making the argument that Trump is worthy of being President as the start of the discussion.

Now if someone thinks/believes that Trump is worthy to be President, that sets a base line for discussion.

If some posters think/believes that Clinton is worthy to be President, that sets a base line for discussion.
---------------------------------


At this point posters argue:
HIllary loves black and brown people,....trump hates them
Hillary loves women....trump hates women
Hillary is sane...trump is insane....

Basically hillary loves...trumps hates......hillary is sane...trump is nuts....

[kenrexford]

No sense aguin I see.

Take for example the character thing. There are attacks on Trump's character. I understand that.I contrast that by saying that Hillary does not have character either such that this is not a good argument. The response is that I am juvenile? As if this excuses bad character? Please.

On the other issues Trump's actual position is not argued. Instead a hyperbolic exaggeration of his position is offered in many respects to make his positions look like lunacy. Meanwhile Hillary's actual positions re-calculated to sound better.

I could do the same thing but that would be silly. I could say so many things about the Clinton Body Count to suggest that Hillary is an assassin. I could say that she is a Manchurian Candidate handled by Huma abedin. I could call her a communist. I could say that she likes abortion because of the population control of problematic black children. These sorts of hyperbolic arguments have been made before. They are equally silly.

I was trying to talk policy.

[kenberg]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 05:05, said:

No sense aguin I see.

Take for example the character thing. There are attacks on Trump's character. I understand that.I contrast that by saying that Hillary does not have character either such that this is not a good argument. The response is that I am juvenile? As if this excuses bad character? Please.

On the other issues Trump's actual position is not argued. Instead a hyperbolic exaggeration of his position is offered in many respects to make his positions look like lunacy. Meanwhile Hillary's actual positions re-calculated to sound better.

I could do the same thing but that would be silly. I could say so many things about the Clinton Body Count to suggest that Hillary is an assassin. I could say that she is a Manchurian Candidate handled by Huma abedin. I could call her a communist. I could say that she likes abortion because of the population control of problematic black children. These sorts of hyperbolic arguments have been made before. They are equally silly.

I was trying to talk policy.

I rarely argue, at least not if arguing means trying to get others to agree that I am right. If someone is interested in what I think, I'll say. And they can say what they think. And perhaps this will lead to some further reflection. Or not.

Take immigration. There was some WC discussion on this topic a couple of years back. I said that I favor immigration but I do think that there is a big difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. I would have preferred it if the 14th amendment had said that a child born on American soil to a mother who has a legal right to be on American soil has automatic citizenship. Possibly "subject ot the jurisdiction...." in fact could take care of this but, as with most legal debates, it quickly gets murky. I don't favor massive round-ups and deportations, but illegal immigration seems to me to be something requiring some sober reflection. It is not good to have large numbers of people living their entire lives in shadow with no chance of citizenship, it is also not good to have the requirement for citizenship be simply the ability to somehow get here and then successfully avoid discovery for a period of time. Building a wall sounds extremely wasteful. It could be done, of course it could be done. But should we?

I have no expectation that anyone will be so swayed by this brilliance that they will from then on think just as I do. But possibly they will think it interesting, as I might find their thoughts interesting.

I regard Trump as completely unpredictable. I have no idea of whether he means it when he threatens that a NATO country that is not paying a sufficient share of expenses will not be defended, but I am pretty sure that if some financial issues need to be addressed this sort of off the cuff public threat is not the way to do it. For all I know if he gets into a dispute with Angela Merkel he will start talking about the unpredictability of a woman when going through menopause. He seems totally off the rails.

[PassedOut]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 05:05, said:

I was trying to talk policy.

I wish you would. Putting aside the character issues, Clinton has been much more specific about policy and hers are available for inspection, mostly proposing incremental adjustments to current policies.

Trump is not a policy wonk -- to put it mildly -- but we've all had the opportunity to hear many of his policy pronouncements via his media availability. I've heard him put forward the following:

Build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it
Deport 11 million illegal immigrants
Stop admitting Muslim immigrants fleeing war
Rescind our agreements with other countries
Reduce marginal tax rates
Eliminate inheritance taxes
Increase government spending on the military
Increase government spending on infrastructure
Maintain the status quo on entitlement spending

Are these not his policies? If so, how can they be successful? If not, why did he put them forward?

Seriously.

[PassedOut]

Oh well, I see I'm behind the news (again): Trump’s new deportation plan: Do what Obama is doing but ‘with a lot more energy’

Quote

Trump has long called for quicker removal of illegal immigrants who become violent. On Monday night, Trump explained how he would address nonviolent illegal immigrants.

"As far as everybody else, we're going to go through the process," Trump said. "What people don't know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country. Bush, the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I'm going to do the same thing."

Hard to keep up.

[Zelandakh]

 akwoo, on 2016-August-20, 15:48, said:

2) Technology is gradually making every human with an IQ less than 120 obsolete. Unless we want the Amish solution, low labor force participation is inevitable. The question is how we manage the transition.

An IQ of 120 translates to approximately 10% of the population. I think predicting a 90% unemployment rate any time soon is pretty extreme even by Water Cooler standards. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the statistics in this post are certainly within the 93.8% of online statistics made up on the spur of the moment.

Anyway, my non-scientific current event poll question for the thread - Who thinks Usain Bolt is clean? Who thinks he is the next Lance Armstrong waiting to happen?

[mike777]

" Morgan Stanley, using data from an Oxford University study, predicted that nearly half of US jobs will be replaced by robots over the next two decades...."

"MCKINSEY & CO. PUBLISHED RESEARCH LAST FALL suggesting 45% of the activities individuals are paid to perform can be automated using existing technology."


To be fair there is the counter argument that all of these robots/technology will create many many new jobs for humans.


I just read an article that said that over the past decade only 19 teachers have been fired for subpar performance in California. So at least in California it sounds as if students are doing great, with great human teachers. No fear of robot teachers there.

[kenrexford]

As to the wall. You are taking to literally. He is talking about offsetting the cost of the wall with the change to the trade imbalance.

Deportations. I don't think you have his position exactly right. There is an upcoming speech on this. I will defer on that until then.

Muslim immigrants. That one is easy to make work. The only question is whether or not it is immoral. Why are we not accepting all of the displaced people in Africa? Why are we not accepting all of the people in any other part of the world who are not happy with where they are? Is there some particular reason why Syrian refugees must be taken into the United States in amazing numbers but we do not bring in countless people in sub-Saharan Africa who have been dealing with much worse for a longer time.

Trade deals. There's a difference between rescinding and doing nothing vs renegotiating bad deals.

Military. I understand both sides of that argument. The same not taking a particularly strong position either way.

Infrastructure. Seriously?

Entitlements. I disagree with Trump on entitlements. I think the retirement age should be increased.

Taxes. I think the tax benefit for people going overseas should be dealt with. I think the corporate income tax rate should be lowered while the capital gains tax should be increased. I do not necessarily agree with all things Trump says on this aspect.

The big picture. Because someone supports one candidate over the other does not mean that that person supports all things that that candidate stands for. It means that the person supports one candidate more than the other candidate. There are some things I find more palatable about Hillary Clinton. That does not mean that I am anti Trump. It does not mean that I am pro-hillary. It means that neither candidate is Ken Rexford. However on many more issues I agree with Trump. I have laid those out.

[PassedOut]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 09:01, said:

Infrastructure. Seriously?

That's your way of discussing policy?

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree on one huge thing — and Wall Street knows it

Quote

Trump has supported rebuilding infrastructure from the beginning of his campaign.

"Rebuild the country's infrastructure — nobody can do that like me, believe me," he said in the speech announcing his candidacy.

"It will be done on time, on budget, way below costs, way below what anyone ever thought. I look at these roads being built all over the country and I say, 'I could build these things for one third.' We have to rebuild our infrastructure: our bridges, our roadways, our airports."

Even after his initial campaign launch, he has committed to these large improvements throughout his campaign.

You say you want a discussion on policy, and yet you explain how Trump will square his tax cuts with his additional spending on infrastructure by saying:

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 09:01, said:

Infrastructure. Seriously?

On other issues, you disagree with Trump on some, claim that I take what he says "to literally (sic)" on another, and assert that we can't believe what he has plainly said in the past until he gives his real position in an upcoming speech.

Are your overriding issues limited to renegotiating trade deals and restricting immigration?

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2016-August-23, 08:54, said:

" Morgan Stanley, using data from an Oxford University study, predicted that nearly half of US jobs will be replaced by robots over the next two decades...."

"MCKINSEY & CO. PUBLISHED RESEARCH LAST FALL suggesting 45% of the activities individuals are paid to perform can be automated using existing technology."

When I was in elementary school, My Weekly Reader predicted that robots would replace all jobs by the year 2000. (It didn't happen.)

[Winstonm]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 09:01, said:

As to the wall. You are taking to literally. He is talking about offsetting the cost of the wall with the change to the trade imbalance.

Deportations. I don't think you have his position exactly right. There is an upcoming speech on this. I will defer on that until then.

You may have a lot longer to wait. Breaking news:

Quote

For some reason, Donald Trump has cancelled all his scheduled campaign events in Colorado, Nevada and Oregon that were planned for this week. This week was supposed to be “immigration week” for the Trump campaign, per Trump’s new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway.

Trump will still attend a private fundraiser in Aspen, Colorado, although he will not make a speech on immigration that was scheduled in Denver on Thursday, according to the Denver Post

.

[Winstonm]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 05:05, said:

No sense aguin I see.

Take for example the character thing. There are attacks on Trump's character. I understand that.I contrast that by saying that Hillary does not have character either such that this is not a good argument. The response is that I am juvenile? As if this excuses bad character? Please.

On the other issues Trump's actual position is not argued. Instead a hyperbolic exaggeration of his position is offered in many respects to make his positions look like lunacy. Meanwhile Hillary's actual positions re-calculated to sound better.

I could do the same thing but that would be silly. I could say so many things about the Clinton Body Count to suggest that Hillary is an assassin. I could say that she is a Manchurian Candidate handled by Huma abedin. I could call her a communist. I could say that she likes abortion because of the population control of problematic black children. These sorts of hyperbolic arguments have been made before. They are equally silly.

I was trying to talk policy.

Whose policy? Trump seems to have none.

[kenrexford]

Regarding the word seriously. You included infrastructure as a trump policy as if that was a bad thing. I guess I misunderstood your point. Hence seriously.

If the issue is how to pay for that then I have some news for you. Under Obama the national debt has doubled. We have added about 10 trillion in debt in eight years. Nobody pays for anything anymore. Do you think Clinton is going to balance the budget?

That said the question regarding taxes is getting into particularly deep Theory. That's a whole lot of discussion. Too much for completion in any intelligible post.