Middle Class[Income] Jobs ain't Coming Back?

[bUU]

So are you advocating the elimination of the concept of retirement? So we eliminate stay at home moms?

Nope. Neither.

Deliberately misconstruing what people are talking about doesn't help you understand what they're saying. It just makes them care less about what you say in response. My comment was clearly in the context of balancing the benefits (to business) of productivity with the negative impact of productivity on the availability and value of work. Please go back and read my message in that context. Thanks.

Horsepuckey.

A familiar refrain from those who believe they're worth more than others or otherwise revel in ascendancy of the fortunate over those less fortunate. We'll have to agreed to disagree.

 

[REWahoo]

Deliberately misconstruing what people are talking about doesn't help you understand what they're saying. It just makes them care less about what you say in response.

Interesting that you take no responsibility for the lack of clarity in your post, choosing to blame the reader instead.

 

[bUU]

Why would any reasonable person think someone who said what I said meant what he decided to ascribe to it? I didn't say anything about SAHM. I didn't say anything about retirees. I was talking about productivity and the impact on people who work. I could reinterpret what others post in such "everything is black-and-white" ways, but how does that serve the discussion?

Side question: How much do we really want to spend the rest of the thread discussing the discussion?

 

[NotMyFault]

Nope. Neither.

Deliberately misconstruing what people are talking about doesn't help you understand what they're saying. It just makes them care less about what you say in response. My comment was clearly in the context of balancing the benefits (to business) of productivity with the negative impact of productivity on the availability and value of work. Please go back and read my message in that context. Thanks.

I understood your post and I was using those examples to point out the flaw in your logic. It is productivity that raises the standard of living and allows less people to work. In the face of rampant increases in productivity you can allow more people to retire, raise the basic standard of living, or some combination of both. In our society we do a combination of both. Retirement benefits as you age and welfare programs for the poor.

NMF

 

[MichaelB]

I am reminded of this

Argument Clinic - YouTube

 

[bUU]

I understood your post and I was using those examples to point out the flaw in your logic.

No. What you pointed out is that the comment could be misconstrued if taken more broadly than the context of the discussion we were having. Let's test your thesis: Are you willing to grant what I wrote with caveats. Because with the caveats, your objection crumbles.

It is productivity that raises the standard of living and allows less people to work.

I have nothing against productivity. Like any powerful tool, it simply needs to be used responsibly, so that it doesn't harm people.

In the face of rampant increases in productivity you can allow more people to retire, raise the basic standard of living, or some combination of both.

Productivity doesn't actually do that. Rather, productivity combined with innovation that makes productive use of the resources made available by productivity does that. Productivity in the absence of such utilization of freed resources often leads only to advantage for some at the expense of others.

In our society we do a combination of both. Retirement benefits as you age and welfare programs for the poor.

Who here believes that welfare is better for the poor than good jobs?

 

[REWahoo]

I am reminded of this...

+1

Tiresome to see yet another thread where someone apparently wants to bicker for sport.

 

[bUU]

With respect, maybe it wouldn't seem that way if you respected a perspective you didn't support, a bit more.

 

[REWahoo]

Also with respect, the perspective isn't the issue, it is watching the repetitive argumentative approach on thread after thread.

 

[ziggy29]

I understood your post and I was using those examples to point out the flaw in your logic. It is productivity that raises the standard of living and allows less people to work. In the face of rampant increases in productivity you can allow more people to retire, raise the basic standard of living, or some combination of both. In our society we do a combination of both. Retirement benefits as you age and welfare programs for the poor.

Pretty much. It has historically been said that 5% unemployment at any given time is generally considered "full employment" by many economists. I suspect we're closer to 7-8% these days, and it wouldn't surprise me in a decade or two if 10% becomes the new 5%.

The bottom line to me is that we can't both have a prosperous society in labor becomes less and less necessary *and* a society that continues to demonize the chronically underemployed as slackers who don't deserve our help. Yes, when employment is "full" and almost anyone of sound mind and body can get a decent job in a reasonable time frame, the "slacker" argument is a bit more convincing. But not these days, and certainly not if productivity gains and decreasing demand for labor (even in a growing economy) continue to chip away at the "help wanted" signs.

 

[bUU]

The bottom line to me is that we can't both have a prosperous society in labor becomes less and less necessary *and* a society that continues to demonize the chronically underemployed as slackers who don't deserve our help. Yes, when employment is "full" and almost anyone of sound mind and body can get a decent job in a reasonable time frame, the "slacker" argument is a bit more convincing. But not these days, and certainly not if productivity gains and decreasing demand for labor (even in a growing economy) continue to chip away at the "help wanted" signs.

Yes absolutely. There needs to be a consistent ethos, with both sides of the equation chosen so that they complement each other, not work against each other.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Where are the cats with pancakes on their heads? I'm tired of working.

 

[Texas Proud]

There's no real need to worry about who should and shouldn't work: Everyone who can, should. If society incurs lower productivity from that, so be it. There are no dividends to society from increased productivity at the expense of utilization. Productivity must be able to stand on its own, to be worthy, not steal from full employment.

I do not see how you can change the meaning of what you said...

"There's no real need to worry about who should and shouldn't work: Everyone who can, should."

Seems like a simple statement that others have pointed out seems to be all inclusive.... you might have meant everybody who wants to work, should, but that is not what you said. I think there are many people on this board who CAN work, but choose not to.... that goes against your statement.


Also, I think that the times are a bit different than it was back in the 60s or 70s... globalization has changed the labor force... back in the old days the cost of communication to foreign countries meant that almost all the world was excluded from most jobs here.... heck, most jobs had to be local to the work. IOW, if you had an accounting or purchasing or sales or ... dept., you had to have almost all workers located in the same building... today, that is not the case.

Because the pool of potential employees for each job has increased by a LARGE factor, it is not a big surprise that wages have come down... I do not see this changing in the future...


Productivity is one of the biggest factors that make most workers here worth the middle class wages they are getting... productivity is not bad... it is the reason we have the standard of living we have.... without it we would be a third world country.... I for one think it is the best thing going for us....

 

[bUU]

Side question: How much do we really want to spend the rest of the thread discussing the discussion?

I do not see how you can change the meaning of what you said...

Evidently the answer to my question is "some more than others".

Also, I think that the times are a bit different than it was back in the 60s or 70s... globalization has changed the labor force... back in the old days the cost of communication to foreign countries meant that almost all the world was excluded from most jobs here.... heck, most jobs had to be local to the work. IOW, if you had an accounting or purchasing or sales or ... dept., you had to have almost all workers located in the same building... today, that is not the case.

Globalization is another force that puts pressure on society's ability to responsibly employ its available labor resources - and one that is actually beyond the nation's direct control, thereby making it that much more important to address productivity in a superlatively socially-responsible manner.

Because the pool of potential employees for each job has increased by a LARGE factor, it is not a big surprise that wages have come down... I do not see this changing in the future...

To the extent that's the case, it makes what ziggy29 said all-the-more important.

 

[REWahoo]

OK everyone, please ignore any statements made by any poster that don't actually mean what they say.

 

[bUU]

Or rather, please don't argue against nonsensical extreme perversions of what people write, which you make up in your own mind, just because you don't want to address the actual points they made.

Can we go back to discussing the issue, now?

 

[REWahoo]

Or rather, please don't argue against nonsensical extreme perversions of what people write, which you made up in your own mind, just because you don't want to address the actual points they made.

 

[bUU]

Predictable.

 

[Bestwifeever]

OK everyone, please ignore any statements made by any poster that don't actually mean what they say.

And who also continues to discuss something after they suggest others stop discussing it? :d

Loving this thread.

 

[brewer12345]

There's no real need to worry about who should and shouldn't work: Everyone who can, should. If society incurs lower productivity from that, so be it. There are no dividends to society from increased productivity at the expense of utilization. Productivity must be able to stand on its own, to be worthy, not steal from full employment.

Da, Tovarisch.

 

[brewer12345]

Sometimes I would really love to see the "leader board" of which posters were most ignored by other forum participants.

 

[ziggy29]

To the extent that's the case, it makes what ziggy29 said all-the-more important.

Thanks, but I'm still trying to reconcile statements like these with a suggestion that "everyone who can work, should work." That seems to contradict the opinion that we are entering a new economic reality that is increasingly rendering labor as obsolete.

 

[bUU]

What you wrote was this:

The bottom line to me is that we can't both have a prosperous society in labor becomes less and less necessary *and* a society that continues to demonize the chronically underemployed as slackers who don't deserve our help.

It is the inconsistency that is invalid. My question earlier was ignored, but is critical in this... I asked: Who here believes that welfare is better for the poor than good jobs? It is clear that a lot of people here don't like the idea of society's responsibilities, because they know that if they're part of something that has responsibilities it means that their own personal advantage is thereby limited, but the answer to this question is critical. On the left you have the people who think that welfare is the right approach. On the right you have people who think letting people die in the streets is the right approach. What you point out here is that the extremes are both wrong... supporting a compromise perspective that respects both those who have good paying jobs and respects those who want them. It seems that respect is the biggest loser in all this, in more ways than just those we're discussing.

 

[Keim]

This. Is. Hilarious.

I will now go on for several posts explaining the context (real and imagined) of the above claimed hilarity while growing increasingly agitated.

 

[NotMyFault]

Sometimes I would really love to see the "leader board" of which posters were most ignored by other forum participants.

I have never "ignored" anyone because I assumed it would make the threads disjointed and hard to follow. is this not the case?

NMF