Live data from Hacker News

A disaster is looming for American men

washingtonpost.com

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#41

> "Job destruction caused by technology is not a futuristic concern. It is something we have been living with for two generations" If American thought leaders such as Larry Summers think that technology destroys jobs and that it's a relatively recent phenomenon, then America is truly screwed.

I'll leave this here for those making the "technical unemployment" argument. After hundreds of years of virtually the same argument being made, I think the burden is on you to say why this time is different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment#Pre...

1) If you are climbing the S-curve, most of the journey looks like exponential growth.

2) It's less of unemployment argument than reduced value argument. Unemployment is result from the lower limit for the living wage. People in India can find work for $1 per day even in automated society. If we are willing to reverse wage increases, remove laws regulating working conditions and remove all kinds of welfare, we can keep people employed for very long time.

3) In the past people could just leave menial jobs and pick a new job that required more intellectual capacity. We are reaching the limit where average Joe has no intellectual capacity that would increase their value in economy.

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#42
I take pause when I see anything from Larry Summers. From his wikipedia page:

Summers's role in the deregulation of derivatives contracts

On May 7, 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Concept Release soliciting input from regulators, academics, and practitioners to determine "how best to maintain adequate regulatory safeguards without impairing the ability of the OTC (over-the-counter) derivatives market to grow and the ability of U.S. entities to remain competitive in the global financial marketplace."[21] On July 30, 1998, then-Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Summers testified before the U.S. Congress that "the parties to these kinds of contract are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies." At the time Summers stated that "to date there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need."[22] In 1999 Summers endorsed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which removed the separation between investment and commercial banks, saying "With this bill, the American financial system takes a major step forward towards the 21st Century."[23]

When George Stephanopoulos asked Summers about the financial crisis in an ABC interview on March 15, 2009, Summers replied that "there are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last eighteen months, but what's happened at A.I.G. ... the way it was not regulated, the way no one was watching ... is outrageous."

At the 2005 Federal Reserve conference in Jackson Hole, Raghuram Rajan presented a paper called "Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?". Rajan pointed to a number of potential problems with the financial developments of the past thirty years.[24] The problems that Rajan considered include skewed incentives of managers, herding behavior among traders, investment bankers, and hedge fund operators who suffer withdrawals if they under-perform the market. Rajan also discussed the problems associated with firms that "goose up returns" by taking risky positions that yield a "positive carry."[25] Justin Lahart, writing in the Wall Street Journal in January 2009 about the response to Rajan's paper at the conference recounts that "former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, famous among economists for his blistering attacks, told the audience he found 'the basic, slightly lead-eyed premise of [Mr. Rajan's] paper to be largely misguided.'"[26]

In February 2009, Summers quoted John Maynard Keynes, saying "When circumstances change, I change my opinion", reflecting both on the failures of Wall Street deregulation and his new leadership role in the government bailout.[27] On April 18, 2010, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, Clinton said Summers was wrong in the advice he gave him not to regulate derivatives.

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#43
Here is what I don't understand about this argument. When the USA first started we lived in a very agricultural society.

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-employment/

You would think by this logic that removing these jobs would have caused a MASSIVE unemployment issue in the USA. Which it did to some degree. I mean farmers were pushed off their land by bigger farmers, and other groups and they went out to find other jobs.

If you look at the Great Depression there were a lot of similar things going on to what is going on now. The wealth is sitting at the top 1%, people end up working crazy hours to make it. Skyrocketing property costs.

The recession was an indicator of this and my question is, where we able to divert disaster or did we just kick the disaster down to the next decade? What political movement will help turn around the disaster that we are currently facing (if we are facing a disaster)? I don't know the answer to this but I personally see that there are a few economic bubbles we're sitting on tech, real estate, government employment. Any one could pop and cause a massive problem.

Does anyone have a place I can go to learn more about this? Specific books, blogs, podcasts or sites that talk about these issues?

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#44
This will rise for a few more years and then will start to slowly fall off as the old professions start to die, and more and more young people choose professions still in demand. We are now simply in a transition period, both in regard to the technology and the effects of the globalization.

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#45
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is partly because the definition of comfortable has increased faster than the average salary.

In the 70's, middle-class "comfortable" consisted of a 16-30,000 sqft house with a yard, two cars, and remarkably good job stability (pensions, etc). Today, it takes nearly 2x the median household income to get something resembling that kind of life. Granted, you're still considered middle class at that level of income...

> Today, it takes nearly 2x the median household income to get something resembling that kind of life.

In some cities. In other cities, that's just not true. Example: in Atlanta, GA, the median income is right over $55k. According to Zillow, that will get you a house in the $227k range. There are tons of single-family houses with yards in that price range (or even half that) in the city.

I ran similar math for Dallas, TX. I'd bet there are a lot of markets where this is true.

Housing is only expensive in the expensive housing markets.

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#46
post #19

Disaster is already here. In the 1950's you could raise a family with 2.3 children on a 40 hour work week. Today, families are struggling to make ends meet with 60-70+ hour work weeks. Technology was supposed to have made things more efficient. It seems to have had the opposite effect.

Technology is making things more efficient; things are produced cheaper and more efficiently and with less humans.

The problem is that policy hasn't evolved with technology. Technology has caused two things: 1) increase income disparity & 2) increase unemployment. The problem is that what worked for American til WW2, a laissez faire economic policy, doesn't handle these two things well. We need to encourage our policy makers to figure out a society that has better wealth distribution and can handle a large % of the population not working.

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#47

> "Job destruction caused by technology is not a futuristic concern. It is something we have been living with for two generations" If American thought leaders such as Larry Summers think that technology destroys jobs and that it's a relatively recent phenomenon, then America is truly screwed.

I'll leave this here for those making the "technical unemployment" argument. After hundreds of years of virtually the same argument being made, I think the burden is on you to say why this time is different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment#Pre...

It's not actually any different; "technical unemployment" has caused many problems that are clearly visible from a cursory examination of the historical record.

The obvious place to start is the horse: the horse population in the US peaked at 26M in 1917 and had declined to 3M by 1960, almost 1/10th of its peak value [0].

When those horses were unemployed by the automobile, we did not retrain them in new lines of work. They just died. It got so bad that conversation societies were established to protect endangered breeds.

Eventually we created a handful of new jobs in the recreational sector for them, so the population of horses is rising now, but it is nowhere close to the peak value, and of course we did not create those jobs within the lifetime of any displaced horse.

In fact what the historical record shows is that massive technological shocks produce long-term unemployment. It doesn't seem to matter if it's a horse, because of course they're just resources to be exploited in the furtherance of human goals. But then again, so are you.

[0] http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/hsp/soaiv_07_ch10.p...

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#48
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is partly because the definition of comfortable has increased faster than the average salary.

In the 70's, middle-class "comfortable" consisted of a 16-30,000 sqft house with a yard, two cars, and remarkably good job stability (pensions, etc). Today, it takes nearly 2x the median household income to get something resembling that kind of life. Granted, you're still considered middle class at that level of income...

> In the 70's, middle-class "comfortable" consisted of a 16-30,000 sqft house with a yard, two cars, and remarkably good job stability (pensions, etc).

I think you are off of what you intended by an order of magnitude on that house size. (And a bit high for reality even after correcting for that error.)

Tangentially related: https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#49
post #43

Here is what I don't understand about this argument. When the USA first started we lived in a very agricultural society. https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-employment/ You would think by this logic that removing these jobs would have caused a MASSIVE unemployment issue in the USA. Which it did to some degree. I mean farmers were pushed off their land by bigger farmers, and other groups and they went out to find…

Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

https://www.amazon.com/Grapes-Wrath-John-Steinbeck/dp/014303...

“The Western States nervous under the beginning change. Texas and Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas, New Mexico, Arizona, California. A single family moved from the land. Pa borrowed money from the bank, and now the bank wants the land. The land company--that's the bank when it has land --wants tractors, not families on the land. Is a tractor bad? Is the power that turns the long furrows wrong? If this tractor were ours it would be good--not mine, but ours. If our tractor turned the long furrows of our land, it would be good. Not my land, but ours. We could love that tractor then as we have loved this land when it was ours. But the tractor does two things--it turns the land and turns us off the land. There is little difference between this tractor and a tank. The people are driven, intimidated, hurt by both. We must think about this.

One man, one family driven from the land; this rusty car creaking along the highway to the west. I lost my land, a single tractor took my land. I am alone and bewildered. And in the night one family camps in a ditch and another family pulls in and the tents come out. The two men squat on their hams and the women and children listen. Here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two squatting men apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other. Here is the anlarge of the thing you fear. This is the zygote. For here "I lost my land" is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate--"We lost our land." The danger is here, for two men are not as lonely and perplexed as one. And from this first "we" there grows a still more dangerous thing: "I have a little food" plus "I have none." If from this problem the sum is "We have a little food," the thing is on its way, the movement has direction. Only a little multiplication now, and this land, this tractor are ours. The two men squatting in a ditch, the little fire, the side- meat stewing in a single pot, the silent, stone-eyed women; behind, the children listening with their souls to words their minds do not understand. The night draws down. The baby has a cold. Here, take this blanket. It's wool. It was my mother's blanket--take it for the baby. This is the thing to bomb. This is the beginning--from "I" to "we."

If you who own the things people must have could understand this, you might preserve yourself. If you could separate causes from results, if you could know Paine, Marx, Jefferson, Lenin, were results, not causes, you might survive. But that you cannot know. For the quality of owning freezes you forever into "I," and cuts you off forever from the "we."

The Western States are nervous under the begining change. Need is the stimulus to concept, concept to action. A half-million people moving over the country; a million more restive, ready to move; ten million more feeling the first nervousness.

And tractors turning the multiple furrows in the vacant land.”

Re: A disaster is looming for American men

#50

> "Job destruction caused by technology is not a futuristic concern. It is something we have been living with for two generations" If American thought leaders such as Larry Summers think that technology destroys jobs and that it's a relatively recent phenomenon, then America is truly screwed.

I'll leave this here for those making the "technical unemployment" argument. After hundreds of years of virtually the same argument being made, I think the burden is on you to say why this time is different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment#Pre...

I don't think someone can argue that technology does not destroy jobs in the short term. There's a reason why Joseph Schumpeter called it Creative Destructions.

It's hard to accept because the people hit are not necessarily those that will benefit from the newly created opportunities. But if History is clear on one thing, it's that the number of winners outweighs the losers.

Every economy that resists creative destructions in favor of short term social peace ends up watching prosperity pass by.

Post reply on HN