got to love Mass government??????

[vinny11950]

As are the unfunded parts of obamacare,the premium subsidy program as well as the medicaid expansion. Expected to add trillions. So once again, both parties running up debt.

According to the CBO estimate, this is not true.

https://www.vox.com/cards/obamacare/how-much-does-obamacare-cost-the-government

From the 2012 to 2222 period it is lowering the budget deficit. More importantly, Democrats spent close to a year holding hearings and debates on how to pay for the damn thing. They came up with a mix of cost savings and taxes. The point is, they put a lot more effort and thought into how to pay for the damn thing, than what Republicans did for their tax cuts. The CBO estimated the tax cut would create a deficit and they just shrugged and passed the bill anyway. That's because Republicans care more about passing tax cuts than about lowering the deficit and debt. Every challenge and scenario is an opportunity to cut taxes.

 

[vinny11950]

This is an interesting point, and I think it has some validity. But you conclude that it is “holding a tight range and not moving much”, when your graph clearly shows otherwise. It has run 20% - 25% of GDP for the last ten years, but it ran 4% - 10% up to WW2, and then 15% - 20% thru the primary Cold War years (1950 - 1980). So, spending over the last ten years, even as your fraction of GDP, is 3x - 5x higher than pre-WW2 and 20% - 30% higher than any time in the last 70 years, excepting a few years in the Reagan era.

Your conclusion doesn’t agree with the data you provided to support it.

Look at the chart again, there is no trend in the line. Since 70s it has been in that range. It certainly doesn't support the argument that spending is out of control. If spending was out of control, the trend in the line would be up. There is no up trend.

And seriously, do you really want to go back to pre-WW2 spending levels when the economy was struggling? Then there was a major uptick in government spending for the war effort and low and behold, the economy takes off. As a result of major government spending.

The argument that federal government spending is not in part responsible for the success of the economy is contrary to the reality that the US economy is the biggest economy in the world. SS, Medicare and Medicaid are part of the economic foundation that provide people with some security to take risks, open businesses and spend. Without those programs the uncertainty of the future would make people save much more which in turn would stall the economy and probably cause a major recession.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

According to the CBO estimate, this is not true.

https://www.vox.com/cards/obamacare/how-much-does-obamacare-cost-the-government

.

Medicaid cost estimate running 49% ABOVE estimates.
https://www.investors.com/news/obamacare-medicaid-costs-rocket-49-past-estimates/

 

[Doug MacIVER]

'Interesting stats, from of all places CNN. Big three in 1956, Ford,Gm, Chrysler, employed over one million. today's Big Three Apple, Google, Facebook two hundred thirty thousand? Alot more money in fewer hands. link will not paste? From Fareed Zakaria GPS show ,interview with Simon Winchester
https://www.cnn.com/shows/fareed-zakaria-gps

 

[CaptSpiff]

'Interesting stats, from of all places CNN. Big three in 1956, Ford,Gm, Chrysler, employed over one million. today's Big Three Apple, Google, Facebook two hundred thirty thousand? A lot more money in fewer hands. link will not paste? From Fareed Zakaria GPS show ,interview with Simon Winchester
https://www.cnn.com/shows/fareed-zakaria-gps

I was only able to find an 80 second embedded video of Mr Simon Winchester describing the incredible precision required to manufacture a Hi-bypass Turbo Fan jet engine, all relating to his totally exaggerated near-death observations of said engine failing on takeoff. Yes,.... I do get really annoyed when highly intelligent and credentialed people over-dramatically try to colorize an event that true experts, who have planned and trained for it, manage professionally and routinely. Be they firefighters, airplane pilots, or surgeons.
My point: Transport Aircraft are designed for engine failure on takeoff. Pilots train for that, and worse, in full motion simulators. Just sit back and enjoy the flight.

 

[CaptSpiff]

'Interesting stats, from of all places CNN. Big three in 1956, Ford, GM, Chrysler, employed over one million. Today's Big Three Apple, Google, Facebook two hundred thirty thousand? A lot more money in fewer hands. link will not paste? From Fareed Zakaria GPS show ,interview with Simon Winchester
https://www.cnn.com/shows/fareed-zakaria-gps

So,... thanks for letting me get that rant out in the prior post.

I never did get to find the full show video. Is there a path I missed?

On Doug's point above, I'll never forget my high school economics teacher responding to "What is wealth creation?"
He said to imagine a lumberjack felling a tree valued at $40. That tree is trucked to a mill, where it's cut into rough dimensional pieces. Those pieces are shipped to a factory where they are finished and assembled into a table and chairs. They are then delivered to a showroom where consumers pay $600 for the set. Basically, that $40 raw potential was processed by workers and each "effort" added some value. ie Wealth was created at each step of the process for each participant.

I enjoy the product and service of 2 of those new Big Three, but I frequently wonder if we're still in the Wealth Creation business, or if we haven't migrated into the Wealth Transfer business?!?

 

[Doug MacIVER]

So,... thanks for letting me get that rant out in the prior post.

I never did get to find the full show video. Is there a path I missed?

On Doug's point above, I'll never forget my high school economics teacher responding to "What is wealth creation?"
He said to imagine a lumberjack felling a tree valued at $40. That tree is trucked to a mill, where it's cut into rough dimensional pieces. Those pieces are shipped to a factory where they are finished and assembled into a table and chairs. They are then delivered to a showroom where consumers pay $600 for the set. Basically, that $40 raw potential was processed by workers and each "effort" added some value. ie Wealth was created at each step of the process for each participant.

I enjoy the product and service of 2 of those new Big Three, but I frequently wonder if we're still in the Wealth Creation business, or if we haven't migrated into the Wealth Transfer business?!?

sorry about link, it is explained. agree totally with your teacher. of the million employees in '56, how many other jobs in the suppliers to those three? compare the #'s in AI. I'll guess, a lot less! today we import and sell, service, dispose. did I miss anything?

 

[sportbikerider78]

Yes but if those consumers lost their jobs because of those advances or are stuck in min wage or low paying jobs because there is nothing else available there is no money to be freed up. You can make all of the conjecture you want but your statements simply are not backed up by the data.

All levels of skill have their transitions through technology. All have hurdles that bruise and damage income short term. There really is nothing that doesn't. Harping on minimum wage jobs is pointless, because we all go through factories closing/opening, moving from state to state, industries changing. It is the way it is even if we don't like it.

Let's take one example....

How many people do you think would drive cars if they were built by hand without automation? The cost would be astronomical. Did that put some line workers out of a job? Yes, absolutely, while also adding higher tech jobs in the manufacture of the automation, maint, ect.
However, now you and I (not just rich people) can afford to drive any distance we are willing to, for good work. Hundreds of millions do better in the US alone because cars are more affordable.

You could absolutely make the argument that we should not automate the line. That would be fine and then that company would be out of business because another company would compete with automation. Now the entire factory is looking for a job instead of 20% of the line workers.

9 times out of 10 (in my experience) when companies make productivity improvements, they aren't using it as a way to get rid of people, they are looking at it as a way to eliminate a specific task that is bad for people. When they see the productivity gain, they keep the person and put them in a different role. I see that more times then not. When I was a production manager I did countless productivity projects. I never let anyone go because of it.

Fighting technology and improvements in efficiency is not how we stay a global leader in GDP and technology. Completely changing how we educate our kids and prep them for jobs that don't exist yet, is how we win this race.

 

[begreen]

How many people do you think would drive cars if they were built by hand without automation? The cost would be astronomical.

Cars used to be made by hand and they were not more expensive relative to income. If cars were still made by hand they would not necessarily cost a fortune, but in general they would be simpler with less features (including safety) and less variety. Luxury cars (and trucks) came about because there is a lot more profit in them. But many things that we now take for necessity (pwr windows, A/C, 12 pkr stereo, nav systems, 4wd, etc. are not necessities for safe and affordable transportation. Here is a fascinating study comparing car costs vs income vs GDP since the 60s.
(broken link removed to https://blog.chron.com/carsandtrucks/2016/04/cost-of-a-car-in-the-year-you-were-born/)

It's estimated that as many as 800 million jobs will be lost to automation worldwide in the next 12 yrs., 73 million of them in the US. What we don't know is how many new jobs will be created during that period. Estimates are all over the place on that score.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-organizations-and-work/Jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages#part 1

 

[sportbikerider78]

Cars used to be made by hand and they were not more expensive relative to income. If cars were still made by hand they would not necessarily cost a fortune, but in general they would be simpler with less features (including safety) and less variety. Luxury cars (and trucks) came about because there is a lot more profit in them. But many things that we now take for necessity (pwr windows, A/C, 12 pkr stereo, nav systems, 4wd, etc. are not necessities for safe and affordable transportation. Here is a fascinating study comparing car costs vs income vs GDP since the 60s.
(broken link removed to https://blog.chron.com/carsandtrucks/2016/04/cost-of-a-car-in-the-year-you-were-born/)

It's estimated that as many as 800 million jobs will be lost to automation worldwide in the next 12 yrs., 73 million of them in the US. What we don't know is how many new jobs will be created during that period. Estimates are all over the place on that score.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-organizations-and-work/Jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages#part 1

You took that discussion down a rabbit hole. Assuming you still want a car of today, for today. Not the car of yesteryear for today.
The market tells us they want a modern car with all the gizmos..and one that goes 300k+ miles.

73 million jobs lost in the US? That is far from the truth it is on the moon. In 2017 there were only 125M people working in the US in all jobs.

Here is an article suggesting exactly the opposite. It is in the article you posted. It explains exactly the points I have been highlighting. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-i...-from-history-on-ai-automation-and-employment

 

[bholler]

All levels of skill have their transitions through technology. All have hurdles that bruise and damage income short term. There really is nothing that doesn't. Harping on minimum wage jobs is pointless, because we all go through factories closing/opening, moving from state to state, industries changing. It is the way it is even if we don't like it.

Let's take one example....

How many people do you think would drive cars if they were built by hand without automation? The cost would be astronomical. Did that put some line workers out of a job? Yes, absolutely, while also adding higher tech jobs in the manufacture of the automation, maint, ect.
However, now you and I (not just rich people) can afford to drive any distance we are willing to, for good work. Hundreds of millions do better in the US alone because cars are more affordable.

You could absolutely make the argument that we should not automate the line. That would be fine and then that company would be out of business because another company would compete with automation. Now the entire factory is looking for a job instead of 20% of the line workers.

9 times out of 10 (in my experience) when companies make productivity improvements, they aren't using it as a way to get rid of people, they are looking at it as a way to eliminate a specific task that is bad for people. When they see the productivity gain, they keep the person and put them in a different role. I see that more times then not. When I was a production manager I did countless productivity projects. I never let anyone go because of it.

Fighting technology and improvements in efficiency is not how we stay a global leader in GDP and technology. Completely changing how we educate our kids and prep them for jobs that don't exist yet, is how we win this race.

I am not against automation or progress. I was just pointing out that if we continue to loose the manufacturing jobs that provide decent pay and do nothing to replace them with anything but low wage jobs it doesnt matter how much money is freed up because there will be no middle class left to buy those goods.

Now about your other comments. You want to have tax cuts and reduce spending while improving our education system to the point we are preparing kids for the unknown jobs of the future. How do you propose we do that.

And on to of that you think parents should just drive as far as they have to to find good paying jobs leaving those kids with even less time with their parents. That is good for no one.

 

[bholler]

Oh and the 73 mill jobs lost as he said does not account for other jobs added so the net loss would be much less.

 

[Ashful]

Cars used to be made by hand and they were not more expensive relative to income. If cars were still made by hand they would not necessarily cost a fortune...

First, the income of whom? The pre-minimum wage (1938) guys on the line? There are some horrifying stories of the living conditions of those factory workers in those days.

But beyond that, are you honestly trying to use a comparison between today’s tech-packed cars and shoddy antiques with minimal R&D investment, zero safety and emissions requirements, to say it could be as cheap to build without automation? Really?

You’re also using data from pre auto union and benefit-laden days to compare to the cost of operating a workforce in today’s socialized and powerfully unionized United States. Let’s at least TRY to be a little honest in our comparisons, eh?

 

[begreen]

Of course not. Thought that was made clear. There probably would still be some automation making the bolt-on, sub-components of the car. Note that I said less safety features and emissions control (which 45 is trying to phase out anyway). I looked at around 1965 wages and car costs for comparison which I thought was during union heydays. No need to get so uppity about it while asking questions. I have disassembled and reassembled a few cars back in the 70's and have a fair idea of what was in them compared to cars of today.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

ok, perspective, who invented 3D print, the machines, and where are they being built? Honest question. I have not research this at all? Where are most of the robots and automation devices being built and where were they patented? just some thoughts?

 

[Ashful]

Of course not. Thought that was made clear. There probably would still be some automation making the bolt-on, sub-components of the car. Note that I said less safety features and emissions control (which 45 is trying to phase out anyway). I looked at around 1965 wages and car costs for comparison which I thought was during union heydays. No need to get so uppity about it while asking questions. I have disassembled and reassembled a few cars back in the 70's and have a fair idea of what was in them compared to cars of today.

Hah... sorry for the "uppity" response, but I feel it was an unfair comparison. The answer is that automation has made it possible for us to build much (much, much) better cars at a similar (per average salary) price point. Yes, cars did not cost that much more (per average salary) back before automation, but those cars sucked, by today's standards.

 

[begreen]

Sucked is relative. Having owned simpler vehicles from that time there is something to say for their reliability and for their being user repairable. I like KISS engineering, Complex is not always the best option. At the time I knew Volvos inside and out and could work on any part of them. But I hear you and do like and use power window, AC, and cruise control when needed.

 

[Ashful]

I’ve owned a lot of classic cars, and they are indeed easier for owner repair, which is good, because they needed it. Distributors, points, plugs, chassis lube, carb adjustments, lack of safety equipment, and a complete disregard for emissions. Call it simple, I guess it was, but no one was keeping them as a daily driver to 200k miles. Today, that’s not even very remarkable.

 

[begreen]

I’ve owned a lot of classic cars, and they are indeed easier for owner repair, which is good, because they needed it. Distributors, points, plugs, chassis lube, carb adjustments, lack of safety equipment, and a complete disregard for emissions. Call it simple, I guess it was, but no one was keeping them as a daily driver to 200k miles. Today, that’s not even very remarkable.

Not so, lots of old Volvos passed the 200K mark. I crossed country with a 66 in that range. Heck, my dad's 67 Buick Special wagon passed 350K and it finally had to be retired when the frame rotted out due to road salt.

 

[Ashful]

Not so, lots of old Volvos passed the 200K mark. I crossed country with a 66 in that range. Heck, my dad's 67 Buick Special wagon passed 350K and it finally had to be retired when the frame rotted out due to road salt.

I’ve never seen an old Volvo make it much past ten years here. Road salt ate them all. I had two 240’s, both condemned for rot around age 10. Maybe they did better where it doesn’t snow, but even an example of one brand doesn’t disqualify my general statement above: We can afford better cars, thanks to the reduced cost of automation. If you want to argue this point, you’re up against every process control engineer in the business

 

[begreen]

I’ve never seen an old Volvo make it much past ten years here. Road salt ate them all. I had two 240’s, both condemned for rot around age 10. Maybe they did better where it doesn’t snow, but even an example of one brand doesn’t disqualify my general statement above: We can afford better cars, thanks to the reduced cost of automation. If you want to argue this point, you’re up against every process control engineer in the business

Mine were all back east, New England vehicles then. There is a P1800 on Long Island that has passed a million miles. Favorite was the 1966 model wagon, but I never had one older than 10yrs. Dad's Buick was in NY state. Some things about modern cars are great, but there is a lot to be said for the durability of some older vehicles too. What is best about automation is that it relieves the assemblers of a lot of body wrecking, repetitive work.

 

[Ashful]

Mine were all back east, New England vehicles then. There is a P1800 on Long Island that has passed a million miles. Favorite was the 1966 model wagon, but I never had one older than 10yrs. Dad's Buick was in NY state. Some things about modern cars are great, but there is a lot to be said for the durability of some older vehicles too. What is best about automation is that it relieves the assemblers of a lot of body wrecking, repetitive work.

You’re way back before my time. All of my Volvo experience is after about 1980.

 

[begreen]

Yeah, I'm a geezer. First car was a 1956 Packard Clipper. Great vehicle, it had been in storage for 10 yrs and only had about 11,000 miles on it. Now I drive a Volt. I changed my car horn to gunshot sounds. People get out of the way much faster now..

 

[fbelec]

I changed my car horn to gunshot sounds. People get out of the way much faster now..

LOL LOL

 

[sportbikerider78]

According to the CBO estimate, this is not true.

https://www.vox.com/cards/obamacare/how-much-does-obamacare-cost-the-government

From the 2012 to 2222 period it is lowering the budget deficit. More importantly, Democrats spent close to a year holding hearings and debates on how to pay for the damn thing. They came up with a mix of cost savings and taxes. The point is, they put a lot more effort and thought into how to pay for the damn thing, than what Republicans did for their tax cuts. The CBO estimated the tax cut would create a deficit and they just shrugged and passed the bill anyway. That's because Republicans care more about passing tax cuts than about lowering the deficit and debt. Every challenge and scenario is an opportunity to cut taxes.

It was supposed to save money. But we all knew that would not happen and now TONS of people are paying out the nose for insurance with features they never wanted. I have friends that had their insurance go up 2-3x. Absolute failure.