 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Labor's share... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Les Cargill... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years and
prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late cycle
uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is on a
slope of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is
one one hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98
to '02. There was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that
societal forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that
picture.
Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean
of overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all
thought that. There is more area, paradoxically, above
the curve than below it.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.* That is a principle that Peter
Drucker repeats in his books. It's the founding ideal of the
Industrial Revolution. Indeed, I'd like to see the graph drawn
all the way back. Part of what it says is that capital shoulders
mroe and more of the burden, that we live increasingly not by our
hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years and
prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late cycle
uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is on a slope of
102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is one one hundredth of
a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
[/quote]
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
[quote]And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what they've
said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02. There was strong
momentum for a while. I would emphasize that societal forces also
intervened. Many, many sources caused that picture.
[/quote]
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
[quote]Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all thought
that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve than below it.
[/quote]
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap.... Dance,
dance, dance.
[quote]But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
[/quote]
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural world and
the realities of the natural world.
[quote]That is a principle that Peter Drucker
repeats in his books. It's the founding ideal of the Industrial
Revolution. Indeed, I'd like to see the graph drawn all the way back.
Part of what it says is that capital shoulders mroe and more of the
burden, that we live increasingly not by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
[/quote]
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a
"share". Only people get a "share". A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a "share". The
land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge, the loom,
or the computer. The source of all GOODS is labor applied to the natural
world called "land", and of these two only labor (productive human effort
of all kinds) requires a "share" to draw it into the production process.
When we look at "shares" of productive output (and that is what all
compensation is), we have the Austrians and others tying to add a new
production factor and call it "entrepreneurship" and then we have the
marginalists trying to subsume land into capital and end up with a two
factor theory of production that simply ignores people and treats them as
robots called labor while glorifying ownership (in the guise of capital
of course which includes land). The reality is exactly the way Marx calls
it. The human race divides as owners and producers. A constant struggle
between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a declining
factor of production"? No labor, no production. No land, no
production. Capital may magnify production but without both land an
labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land simply "exists" of its
own accord then labor is what creates goods. There is no Good Fairy.
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to be a
declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed by coercion
and force. If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is
naturally occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor
required to further production then labor should benefit as much as
ownership and perhaps even more.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years and
prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late cycle
uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is on a slope of
102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is one one hundredth of
a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
[/quote]
Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that
small detail, they're just fine.
[quote]And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what they've
said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02. There was strong
momentum for a while. I would emphasize that societal forces also
intervened. Many, many sources caused that picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
[/quote]
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
[quote]Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all thought
that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve than below it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap.... Dance,
dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural world and
the realities of the natural world.
[/quote]
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
[quote]That is a principle that Peter Drucker
repeats in his books. It's the founding ideal of the Industrial
Revolution. Indeed, I'd like to see the graph drawn all the way back.
Part of what it says is that capital shoulders mroe and more of the
burden, that we live increasingly not by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a
"share".
[/quote]
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
[quote]Only people get a "share".
[/quote]
Is this supposed to be profound?
[quote]A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a "share". The
land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge, the loom,
or the computer. The source of all GOODS is labor applied to the natural
world called "land", and of these two only labor (productive human effort
of all kinds) requires a "share" to draw it into the production process.
When we look at "shares" of productive output (and that is what all
compensation is), we have the Austrians and others tying to add a new
production factor and call it "entrepreneurship" and then we have the
marginalists trying to subsume land into capital and end up with a two
factor theory of production that simply ignores people and treats them as
robots called labor while glorifying ownership (in the guise of capital
of course which includes land). The reality is exactly the way Marx calls
it. The human race divides as owners and producers. A constant struggle
between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a declining
factor of production"? No labor, no production. No land, no
production. Capital may magnify production but without both land an
labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land simply "exists" of its
own accord then labor is what creates goods. There is no Good Fairy.
[/quote]
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor
with capital goods. John Derbyshire tells the story of getting
vacation photo prints at Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
[quote]Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to be a
declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed by coercion
and force.
[/quote]
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
[quote]If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is
naturally occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor
required to further production then labor should benefit as much as
ownership and perhaps even more.
[/quote]
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But perhaps
an arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless we wish to simply
abandon consumerism altogether.
But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so
very, very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between population
growth and production that puts the poor at risk. This isn't the same
thing. It's closer to a Luddite observation - in the sense
that Luddism *really* means, not technophobia justified by
Luddism
but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:40:11 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years and
prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late cycle
uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is on a slope
of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is one one
hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that small detail,
they're just fine.
[/quote]
The politics of Marx have been proved wrong. Not the economics. And
Malthus was not tested until very recently except in China and India
where he was quite right and still is. Too many people. Insufficient
natural resources.
[quote]And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02. There
was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that societal
forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
[/quote]
The "uptick" from 98 to 2002 was a technology boom reinforced by a 1997
bubble blowing tax cut for the rich. It ended with the influx of a
zillion H1B's from India in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B#Congressional_yearly_numerical_cap
[quote]Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all thought
that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve than below
it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap....
Dance, dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural world
and the realities of the natural world.
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
[/quote]
The data you look at are reflections of what happened and are not
indicative of cause.
[quote]That is a principle that Peter Drucker repeats in his books. It's the
founding ideal of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, I'd like to see
the graph drawn all the way back. Part of what it says is that capital
shoulders mroe and more of the burden, that we live increasingly not
by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a
"share".
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
[/quote]
No. It does not. Capital development and use does that. An unused
hammer or an imagined thorium reactor is pretty useless.
[quote]Only people get a "share".
Is this supposed to be profound?
[/quote]
No. It is simply reality.
[quote]A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a "share".
The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge, the
loom, or the computer. The source of all GOODS is labor applied to the
natural world called "land", and of these two only labor (productive
human effort of all kinds) requires a "share" to draw it into the
production process. When we look at "shares" of productive output (and
that is what all compensation is), we have the Austrians and others
tying to add a new production factor and call it "entrepreneurship" and
then we have the marginalists trying to subsume land into capital and
end up with a two factor theory of production that simply ignores
people and treats them as robots called labor while glorifying
ownership (in the guise of capital of course which includes land). The
reality is exactly the way Marx calls it. The human race divides as
owners and producers. A constant struggle between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a declining
factor of production"? No labor, no production. No land, no
production. Capital may magnify production but without both land an
labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land simply "exists" of
its own accord then labor is what creates goods. There is no Good
Fairy.
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor with
capital goods.
[/quote]
No. It is possible to increase the output of labor. But it is not
possible to "replace" labor with capital. The owner of capital splits the
gain with the proprietor of capital. At a minimum, labor is used to
produce all capital. And labor must then _use_ the capital. What the
capital does is to allow increased productivity.
[quote]John Derbyshire tells the story of getting vacation photo
prints at Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to be a
declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed by coercion
and force.
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
[/quote]
All capital is produced by labor. No labor, no capital. And capital on
its own like land on its own produces no human consumable. Only labor
produces.
[quote]If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is naturally
occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor required to
further production then labor should benefit as much as ownership and
perhaps even more.
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But perhaps an
arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless we wish to simply abandon
consumerism altogether.
[/quote]
It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to
_sell_ lip gloss, fancy clothing, and other crap is rather a waste.
Humans _MUST_ consume or die. And it is human demand for food and such
that drives any economy. The ego seems to drive much of what you call
"consumerism" but it is important to remember that discomfort (e.g.
hunger) is the force which impels us to labor. And it is the discomfort
of labor that compels us to create capital.
[quote]But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so very,
very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between population growth
and production that puts the poor at risk. This isn't the same thing.
It's closer to a Luddite observation - in the sense that Luddism
*really* means, not technophobia justified by Luddism
but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
[/quote]
I have no idea what part of "Marxism" you see as wrong. Certainly the
idea that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the rentier is
hokum. But democratic institutions are designed to avert that sort of
disaster by virtue of compromise. As to the "Singularity" I also have to
guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Les Cargill wrote
Michael Coburn wrote:
Les Cargill wrote
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years
and prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late
cycle uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is
on a slope of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is
one one hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called reality.
[/quote]
Like hell they ever did.
[quote]Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that small detail, they're just fine.
The politics of Marx have been proved wrong. Not the economics.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]And Malthus was not tested until very recently except in China and India
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]where he was quite right and still is.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]Too many people.
[/quote]
But nothing like the result he so stupidly claimed.
[quote]Insufficient natural resources.
[/quote]
China doesnt need those, they import what they dont have.
Just like Japan did before them.
[quote]And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02.
There was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that
societal forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
The "uptick" from 98 to 2002 was a technology boom
reinforced by a 1997 bubble blowing tax cut for the rich.
[/quote]
It was a hell of a lot more than just an uptick, fool.
[quote]It ended with the influx of a zillion H1B's from India in 2001.
[/quote]
Just a choice america made. You get to like that or lump it or drive
a truck for a while when you cant compete with them because you
are stupid and only capable of driving a truck for a while. Something
any ape can do.
[quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B#Congressional_yearly_numerical_cap
Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all
thought that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve
than below it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap....
Dance, dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect
the natural world and the realities of the natural world.
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
The data you look at are reflections of what happened and are not indicative of cause.
[/quote]
You wouldnt know what the cause was if it bit you on your lard arse.
You're just some stupid truck driver. That couldnt
even manage to compete with H1Bs from India.
[quote]That is a principle that Peter Drucker repeats in his books. It's
the founding ideal of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, I'd like
to see the graph drawn all the way back. Part of what it says is
that capital shoulders mroe and more of the burden, that we live
increasingly not by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a "share".
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
No. It does not. Capital development and use does that.
[/quote]
Mindless hair splitting.
[quote]An unused hammer or an imagined thorium reactor is pretty useless.
[/quote]
So is your desperate wanking in spades.
[quote]Only people get a "share".
Is this supposed to be profound?
No. It is simply reality.
A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a "share".
The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge,
the loom, or the computer. The source of all GOODS is labor
applied to the natural world called "land", and of these two only
labor (productive human effort of all kinds) requires a "share" to
draw it into the production process. When we look at "shares" of
productive output (and that is what all compensation is), we have
the Austrians and others tying to add a new production factor and
call it "entrepreneurship" and then we have the marginalists trying
to subsume land into capital and end up with a two factor theory of
production that simply ignores people and treats them as robots
called labor while glorifying ownership (in the guise of capital of
course which includes land). The reality is exactly the way Marx
calls it. The human race divides as owners and producers. A
constant struggle between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a
declining factor of production"? No labor, no production. No
land, no production. Capital may magnify production but without
both land an labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land
simply "exists" of its own accord then labor is what creates goods.
There is no Good Fairy.
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor with
capital goods.
No.
[/quote]
Yep.
[quote]It is possible to increase the output of labor.
[/quote]
Its possible to replace it completely. Most obviously with solar collectors etc.
[quote]But it is not possible to "replace" labor with capital.
[/quote]
Corse it is, no labor involved in the use of a solar collector, its completely automated.
[quote]The owner of capital splits the gain with the proprietor of capital.
At a minimum, labor is used to produce all capital.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
[quote]And labor must then _use_ the capital.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
[quote]What the capital does is to allow increased productivity.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
[quote]John Derbyshire tells the story of getting vacation photo
prints at Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to
be a declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed by
coercion and force.
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
All capital is produced by labor. No labor, no capital.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
[quote]And capital on its own like land on its own produces no human consumable.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
[quote]Only labor produces.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland. Most obviously
with solar collectors, no labor whatever involved in their use.
[quote]If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is naturally
occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor required
to further production then labor should benefit as much as
ownership and perhaps even more.
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But perhaps
an arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless we wish to
simply abandon consumerism altogether.
It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to
_sell_ lip gloss, fancy clothing, and other crap is rather a waste.
[/quote]
Its what drives the economy, stupid.
[quote]Humans _MUST_ consume or die.
[/quote]
Humans ALWAYS die.
[quote]And it is human demand for food and such that drives any economy.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
Its actually consumer goods that drive any modern first and second world economy
much more, essentially because the production of food involves so few anymore.
[quote]The ego seems to drive much of what you call "consumerism"
but it is important to remember that discomfort (e.g. hunger)
is the force which impels us to labor.
[/quote]
Utterly mangled all over again. You dont need much labor at all to
feed yourself now, most of the labor most do goes to paying off
the mortgage or paying the rent and paying for the cars etc etc etc .
[quote]And it is the discomfort of labor that compels us to create capital.
[/quote]
Utterly mangled all over again.
[quote]But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so
very, very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between population
growth and production that puts the poor at risk. This isn't the
same thing. It's closer to a Luddite observation - in the sense that
Luddism *really* means, not technophobia justified by Luddism
but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
I have no idea what part of "Marxism" you see as wrong.
[/quote]
The basic premise is just plain wrong.
[quote]Certainly the idea that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the rentier is hokum.
[/quote]
So Marxism just plain wrong.
[quote]But democratic institutions are designed to avert
that sort of disaster by virtue of compromise.
[/quote]
So Marxism just plain wrong.
[quote]As to the "Singularity" I also have to guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:40:11 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years
and prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late
cycle uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is
on a slope of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is
one one hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I
don't think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and
Marx was much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to
see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that small
detail, they're just fine.
The politics of Marx have been proved wrong. Not the economics. And
Malthus was not tested until very recently except in China and India
where he was quite right and still is. Too many people. Insufficient natural resources.
Well, I'm not sure what good he is, then. And to India and China -
they're following their own path out of Malthusian doom. When I say
"Malthus was wrong", that's a very complex phenomenon, and it might be
true only because Malthus said what he said. I don't know for sure,
but I wouldn't be surprised if Henry Ford's wage scheme wasn't a
direct reaction to it.
But what I'm talking about isn't quite the same thing. It's a gradual
eroding of the social norms about work - and IMO, it's been building
for a long time.
People won't starve because stuff's just not there, but they might
live less well because opportunity to earn money is not available.
And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02.
There was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that
societal forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that
picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
The "uptick" from 98 to 2002 was a technology boom reinforced by a
1997 bubble blowing tax cut for the rich. It ended with the influx
of a zillion H1B's from India in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B#Congressional_yearly_numerical_cap
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, that was pretty odious.
But if nothing else,
it illustrates the point I'm trying to make - labor has no *natural*
allies as things progress. I think Henry Ford found himself an ally of
labor, and it helped him win in the marketplace.
Later, FDR was faced with either dealing with the seedier side of
*organized* labor ( who were using Mob muscle, because they were
somewhat outside the law because of factors outside their control
) or not being able to do Lend Lease. And that's when organized
Labor began to be more of a normalized part of society.
And one effect of that ( however slight ) is to reduce the penury in
China and India. To the extent that they can develop middle classes,
I'm derned if I can oppose it, even if it has made my life a little
less easy.
but does any of this apply to our present situation? We can't go back,
at least I don't know how we can. This state of affairs seems to
reflect the actual beliefs and desires of people.
Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all
thought that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve
than below it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap....
Dance, dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural
world and the realities of the natural world.
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
The data you look at are reflections of what happened and are not
indicative of cause.
No, we have to theorize about causes.
That is a principle that Peter Drucker repeats in his books.
It's the founding ideal of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, I'd
like to see the graph drawn all the way back. Part of what it
says is that capital shoulders mroe and more of the burden, that
we live increasingly not by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a
"share".
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
No. It does not. Capital development and use does that. An unused
hammer or an imagined thorium reactor is pretty useless.
Yes, but there is a class of capital that *replaces*
labor.
Only people get a "share".
Is this supposed to be profound?
No. It is simply reality.
"Capital" in this case means the machines "do the
work" and the people who own them get the money. I
thought it would be insulting to say that at
first, though.
A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a
"share". The land does not have its hand out nor does the road,
the bridge, the loom, or the computer. The source of all GOODS is
labor applied to the natural world called "land", and of these two
only labor (productive human effort of all kinds) requires a
"share" to draw it into the production process. When we look at
"shares" of productive output (and that is what all compensation
is), we have the Austrians and others tying to add a new
production factor and call it "entrepreneurship" and then we have
the marginalists trying to subsume land into capital and end up
with a two factor theory of production that simply ignores people
and treats them as robots called labor while glorifying ownership
(in the guise of capital of course which includes land). The
reality is exactly the way Marx calls it. The human race divides
as owners and producers. A constant struggle between the two. Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like
"labor is a
declining factor of production"? No labor, no production. No
land, no production. Capital may magnify production but without
both land an labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land
simply "exists" of its own accord then labor is what creates
goods. There is no Good Fairy.
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor with
capital goods.
No. It is possible to increase the output of labor. But it is not
possible to "replace" labor with capital. The owner of capital
splits the gain with the proprietor of capital. At a minimum, labor
is used to produce all capital. And labor must then _use_ the
capital. What the capital does is to allow increased productivity.
And hence the curves. Right. This is what is meant by "labor is a
declining factor of production".
John Derbyshire tells the story of getting vacation photo
prints at Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to
be a declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed
by coercion and force.
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
repeat
If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is naturally
occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor
required to further production then labor should benefit as much
as ownership and perhaps even more.
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But perhaps
an arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless we wish to simply
abandon consumerism altogether.
It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to
_sell_ lip gloss, fancy clothing, and other crap is rather a waste.
Odd, because they seem to work...
Humans _MUST_ consume or die. And it is human demand for food and
such that drives any economy. The ego seems to drive much of what
you call "consumerism"
By that term I mean widespread consumption of a higher order
than before. Whether that continues is an open question. It
has many enemies.
but it is important to remember that discomfort (e.g.
hunger) is the force which impels us to labor. And it is the
discomfort of labor that compels us to create capital.
This ignores Schumepterian forces. Derb's point is that there used to
be a big developing machine with an operator at the Rite Aid, and you
handed your exposed film to them. They made prints for you.
Now it's self-service and automated. There are completely self-service
checkouts at Home Depot....
In a way, your H1B example was Schumpeterian - it used cheap
air travel to substitute people in.
But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so
very, very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between
population growth and production that puts the poor at risk. This
isn't the same thing. It's closer to a Luddite observation - in the
sense that Luddism *really* means, not technophobia justified by
Luddism but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
I have no idea what part of "Marxism" you see as wrong.
The Malthusian parts. The foundation. *For people who have embraced
modernity*, there is no Malthus. Some people were prevented from this
by empire or something else, but they're catching up.
We really do stand athwart the corpse of scarcity. We won. Sure, there
are exceptions, but by-and-large....
Certainly the
idea that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the rentier is
hokum. But democratic institutions are designed to avert that sort
of disaster by virtue of compromise. As to the "Singularity" I also
have to guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Yes, sorry - I should have been more specific. I don't mean some
dystopian sci-fi movie thing, just a gradual descent into a grayer
future. At least grayer until we adapt mores to fit the new reality.
When John Derbyshire says "the middle class is doomed", I listen.
[/quote]
You shouldnt. Its survived a hell of a lot better than any other
class has and will continue to do that for the forseeable future. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:40:11 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years and
prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late cycle
uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is on a slope
of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is one one
hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that small detail,
they're just fine.
The politics of Marx have been proved wrong. Not the economics. And
Malthus was not tested until very recently except in China and India
where he was quite right and still is. Too many people. Insufficient
natural resources.
[/quote]
Well, I'm not sure what good he is, then. And to India and China -
they're following their own path out of Malthusian doom. When I say
"Malthus was wrong", that's a very complex phenomenon, and it might be
true only because Malthus said what he said. I don't know for sure,
but I wouldn't be surprised if Henry Ford's wage scheme wasn't a direct
reaction to it.
But what I'm talking about isn't quite the same thing. It's a gradual
eroding of the social norms about work - and IMO, it's been building
for a long time.
People won't starve because stuff's just not there, but they might live
less well because opportunity to earn money is not available.
[quote]And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02. There
was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that societal
forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
The "uptick" from 98 to 2002 was a technology boom reinforced by a 1997
bubble blowing tax cut for the rich. It ended with the influx of a
zillion H1B's from India in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B#Congressional_yearly_numerical_cap
[/quote]
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, that was pretty odious.
But if nothing else,
it illustrates the point I'm trying to make - labor has no *natural*
allies as things progress. I think Henry Ford found himself an ally of
labor, and it helped him win in the marketplace.
Later, FDR was faced with either dealing with the seedier side of
*organized* labor ( who were using Mob muscle, because they were
somewhat outside the law because of factors outside their control
) or not being able to do Lend Lease. And that's when organized
Labor began to be more of a normalized part of society.
And one effect of that ( however slight ) is to reduce the penury in
China and India. To the extent that they can develop middle classes,
I'm derned if I can oppose it, even if it has made my life a little
less easy.
but does any of this apply to our present situation? We can't go back,
at least I don't know how we can. This state of affairs seems to
reflect the actual beliefs and desires of people.
[quote]Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all thought
that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve than below
it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap....
Dance, dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural world
and the realities of the natural world.
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
The data you look at are reflections of what happened and are not
indicative of cause.
[/quote]
No, we have to theorize about causes.
[quote]That is a principle that Peter Drucker repeats in his books. It's the
founding ideal of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, I'd like to see
the graph drawn all the way back. Part of what it says is that capital
shoulders mroe and more of the burden, that we live increasingly not
by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a
"share".
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
No. It does not. Capital development and use does that. An unused
hammer or an imagined thorium reactor is pretty useless.
[/quote]
Yes, but there is a class of capital that *replaces*
labor.
[quote]Only people get a "share".
Is this supposed to be profound?
No. It is simply reality.
[/quote]
"Capital" in this case means the machines "do the
work" and the people who own them get the money. I
thought it would be insulting to say that at
first, though.
[quote]A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a "share".
The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge, the
loom, or the computer. The source of all GOODS is labor applied to the
natural world called "land", and of these two only labor (productive
human effort of all kinds) requires a "share" to draw it into the
production process. When we look at "shares" of productive output (and
that is what all compensation is), we have the Austrians and others
tying to add a new production factor and call it "entrepreneurship" and
then we have the marginalists trying to subsume land into capital and
end up with a two factor theory of production that simply ignores
people and treats them as robots called labor while glorifying
ownership (in the guise of capital of course which includes land). The
reality is exactly the way Marx calls it. The human race divides as
owners and producers. A constant struggle between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a declining
factor of production"? No labor, no production. No land, no
production. Capital may magnify production but without both land an
labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land simply "exists" of
its own accord then labor is what creates goods. There is no Good
Fairy.
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor with
capital goods.
No. It is possible to increase the output of labor. But it is not
possible to "replace" labor with capital. The owner of capital splits the
gain with the proprietor of capital. At a minimum, labor is used to
produce all capital. And labor must then _use_ the capital. What the
capital does is to allow increased productivity.
[/quote]
And hence the curves. Right. This is what is meant by "labor is a
declining factor of production".
[quote]John Derbyshire tells the story of getting vacation photo
prints at Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to be a
declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed by coercion
and force.
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
repeat
If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is naturally
occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor required to
further production then labor should benefit as much as ownership and
perhaps even more.
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But perhaps an
arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless we wish to simply abandon
consumerism altogether.
It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to
_sell_ lip gloss, fancy clothing, and other crap is rather a waste.
[/quote]
Odd, because they seem to work...
[quote]Humans _MUST_ consume or die. And it is human demand for food and such
that drives any economy. The ego seems to drive much of what you call
"consumerism"
[/quote]
By that term I mean widespread consumption of a higher order
than before. Whether that continues is an open question. It
has many enemies.
[quote]but it is important to remember that discomfort (e.g.
hunger) is the force which impels us to labor. And it is the discomfort
of labor that compels us to create capital.
[/quote]
This ignores Schumepterian forces. Derb's point is that there used to be
a big developing machine with an operator at the Rite Aid, and you
handed your exposed film to them. They made prints for you.
Now it's self-service and automated. There are completely self-service
checkouts at Home Depot....
In a way, your H1B example was Schumpeterian - it used cheap
air travel to substitute people in.
[quote]But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so very,
very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between population growth
and production that puts the poor at risk. This isn't the same thing.
It's closer to a Luddite observation - in the sense that Luddism
*really* means, not technophobia justified by Luddism
but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
I have no idea what part of "Marxism" you see as wrong.
[/quote]
The Malthusian parts. The foundation. *For people who have embraced
modernity*, there is no Malthus. Some people were prevented from this
by empire or something else, but they're catching up.
We really do stand athwart the corpse of scarcity. We won. Sure, there
are exceptions, but by-and-large....
[quote]Certainly the
idea that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the rentier is
hokum. But democratic institutions are designed to avert that sort of
disaster by virtue of compromise. As to the "Singularity" I also have to
guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
[/quote]
Yes, sorry - I should have been more specific. I don't mean some
dystopian sci-fi movie thing, just a gradual descent into a grayer
future. At least grayer until we adapt mores to fit the new reality.
When John Derbyshire says "the middle class is doomed", I listen.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:25:05 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:40:11 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years and
prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late cycle
uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is on a
slope of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is one one
hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that small detail,
they're just fine.
The politics of Marx have been proved wrong. Not the economics. And
Malthus was not tested until very recently except in China and India
where he was quite right and still is. Too many people. Insufficient
natural resources.
Well, I'm not sure what good he is, then. And to India and China -
they're following their own path out of Malthusian doom. When I say
"Malthus was wrong", that's a very complex phenomenon, and it might be
true only because Malthus said what he said. I don't know for sure, but
I wouldn't be surprised if Henry Ford's wage scheme wasn't a direct
reaction to it.
[/quote]
As far as I am concerned Malthus and Ricardo had it about right. You get
to the point where we were prior to the "New World" (1700 or so when the
USA started to be economically significant) and natural resources were
insufficient to the health and wealth of the total population. Then we
have the industrial revolution in there that _DOES_ alleviate much of the
starvation and deprivation. When I was a Libertarian (age 30) I used to
say that all those wretches slaving away in those factories were the dead
people. Had they stayed on the farms they would have starved. Same with
the Chinese and the Indians but it may well be that the population will
not again overrun the technology. If Malthus was wrong it is education
and knowledge of history that will prevent the recurrence. In today's
world it is the emergence of women as something other than baby factories
that is saving us. The bottom line is that increasing population drives
up rent and technology relieves it. And rent is the bad boy that harms
us all. Marx did not give rent its due and indicted innovation and
technology (as based on greed) along with outright exploitation by
enclosure as a culprit. Henry George was willing to tolerate the ego and
the selfishness in regard to capital. Today, the term "producer surplus"
encompasses BOTH exploitation by innovation and exploitation by
enclosure. And what the neoclassicals and the financiers and accountants
do with the word "profit" would make a magician proud.
[quote]But what I'm talking about isn't quite the same thing. It's a gradual
eroding of the social norms about work - and IMO, it's been building for
a long time.
People won't starve because stuff's just not there, but they might live
less well because opportunity to earn money is not available.
[/quote]
In my own alleged mind "less well" has a different meaning than that
which is defined by the neoconomist. Lip gloss and fast cars have much
less appeal and importance. The time to do what I am doing presently is
much more important to me than earning a TV set (I don't have one and
probably won't get one any tome soon). I am pretty happy with my life
though many would consider me to be poor.
[quote]And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02.
There was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that
societal forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that
picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
The "uptick" from 98 to 2002 was a technology boom reinforced by a 1997
bubble blowing tax cut for the rich. It ended with the influx of a
zillion H1B's from India in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B#Congressional_yearly_numerical_cap
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, that was pretty odious.
But if nothing else,
it illustrates the point I'm trying to make - labor has no *natural*
allies as things progress. I think Henry Ford found himself an ally of
labor, and it helped him win in the marketplace.
Later, FDR was faced with either dealing with the seedier side of
*organized* labor ( who were using Mob muscle, because they were
somewhat outside the law because of factors outside their control ) or
not being able to do Lend Lease. And that's when organized Labor began
to be more of a normalized part of society.
And one effect of that ( however slight ) is to reduce the penury in
China and India. To the extent that they can develop middle classes, I'm
derned if I can oppose it, even if it has made my life a little less
easy.
but does any of this apply to our present situation? We can't go back,
at least I don't know how we can. This state of affairs seems to reflect
the actual beliefs and desires of people.
[/quote]
When I look I hear the word "recovery" I want to puke. It implies a
reinstatement of what was. And what was is not sustainable and is not
for the good. What happened in the 90's was (until the Republican tax cut
for the rich in 1997) sustainable given a little more (not a lot more)
use of tariffs and immigration controls. As much as I rage against
privatization of rent I must confess that this is what I am doing with my
concept of national enclosure. And I am being rather Royal Libertarian
and Republican Conservative about it. I am saying that this is American
land and you can't have it. And we will use OUR ownership of all OUR
natural resources to live the good life while you other people learn to
control your procreation tendencies. It is your overpopulation that is
causing your penury.
Yet I/we have no control over the political and religious views of those
living outside these borders. And I do not want to adopt those
moralities that I know are disadvantageous to prosperity by supporting
such moralities or inviting them to possibly harm my own. "Morality" is
from the Latin "moralis" which means "of manner and custom". I resent
and deplore my own self righteousness, but it is the way it is.
[quote]Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all thought
that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve than below
it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap....
Dance, dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural world
and the realities of the natural world.
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
The data you look at are reflections of what happened and are not
indicative of cause.
No, we have to theorize about causes.
That is a principle that Peter Drucker repeats in his books. It's
the founding ideal of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, I'd like to
see the graph drawn all the way back. Part of what it says is that
capital shoulders mroe and more of the burden, that we live
increasingly not by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a
"share".
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
No. It does not. Capital development and use does that. An unused
hammer or an imagined thorium reactor is pretty useless.
Yes, but there is a class of capital that *replaces* labor.
[/quote]
You are looking at labor as a commodity and as a factor of production and
I am looking at labor as a human being. The basis of all economics is in
fact a two factor system in which you have man (labor - consumer) and
land (natural environment - the natural world). And all political
economy is devoted to increasing the long run utility of the natural
world as regards man. All political and earthy moral contrivances are
attempts to improve utility. As labor and consumer are quite inseparable
then man/labor is never "replaced". To do so would defy the actual
objective.
But if you look at labor as that which no man actually _WANTS_ to do/
consume, as though it was castorbean oil, then we can abide the notion
of capital replacing the labor. Yet we are now concerned with
distribution. We have, for the last 30 years been focused far too
heavily on allocation and productivity and too little focused on
distribution. The unemployment rate is the _ONLY_ current metric that is
indicative of economic performance or political economy at all. It
represents the degree to which proper distribution has failed. Focusing
on GDP is just plain stupid.
[quote]Only people get a "share".
Is this supposed to be profound?
No. It is simply reality.
"Capital" in this case means the machines "do the work" and the people
who own them get the money. I thought it would be insulting to say that
at first, though.
[/quote]
It is still insulting. No matter how you say it in the current system
the insult remains. What has happened is that the holy grail of
ownership of the productive means has been morally elevated to the point
where it has become destructive of the aggregate or general prosperity.
The moral justification for ownership is that it enhances the general
utility. When that ceases to be the case then ownership has become
economically perverse.
[quote]A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a "share".
The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge,
the loom, or the computer. The source of all GOODS is labor applied
to the natural world called "land", and of these two only labor
(productive human effort of all kinds) requires a "share" to draw it
into the production process. When we look at "shares" of productive
output (and that is what all compensation is), we have the Austrians
and others tying to add a new production factor and call it
"entrepreneurship" and then we have the marginalists trying to
subsume land into capital and end up with a two factor theory of
production that simply ignores people and treats them as robots
called labor while glorifying ownership (in the guise of capital of
course which includes land). The reality is exactly the way Marx
calls it. The human race divides as owners and producers. A
constant struggle between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a
declining factor of production"? No labor, no production. No land,
no production. Capital may magnify production but without both land
an labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land simply "exists"
of its own accord then labor is what creates goods. There is no Good
Fairy.
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor with
capital goods.
No. It is possible to increase the output of labor. But it is not
possible to "replace" labor with capital. The owner of capital splits
the gain with the proprietor of capital. At a minimum, labor is used to
produce all capital. And labor must then _use_ the capital. What the
capital does is to allow increased productivity.
And hence the curves. Right. This is what is meant by "labor is a
declining factor of production".
[/quote]
Then say that ownership is an increasing factor of production and be done
with it. Because that is the reality. Whether the production factor is
land or capital it is ownership that is taking too great share of
production and this is not economically positive. Within the confines of
proper political economy, owners are entitled to a larger share of
production only as an incentive to the development of capital and/or
proper long run use of natural resources. When this balance is
incorrect, the current metric that exposes the imbalance is unemployment.
Increasing reward to ownership is not going to correct the imbalance, nor
is any liberalization of procreation.
[quote]John Derbyshire tells the story of getting vacation photo prints at
Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to be
a declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed by
coercion and force.
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
repeat
If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is naturally
occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor required
to further production then labor should benefit as much as ownership
and perhaps even more.
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But perhaps an
arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless we wish to simply
abandon consumerism altogether.
It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to
_sell_ lip gloss, fancy clothing, and other crap is rather a waste.
Odd, because they seem to work...
[/quote]
Your definition of "it works" is based on GDP. Your definition short
changes environment and leisure. If we all work 90 hours a week then the
GDP explodes as the environment deteriorates and the quality of life
sucks.
[quote]Humans _MUST_ consume or die. And it is human demand for food and such
that drives any economy. The ego seems to drive much of what you call
"consumerism"
By that term I mean widespread consumption of a higher order than
before. Whether that continues is an open question. It has many enemies.
[/quote]
I b one of em. :)
[quote]but it is important to remember that discomfort (e.g. hunger) is the
force which impels us to labor. And it is the discomfort of labor that
compels us to create capital.
This ignores Schumepterian forces. Derb's point is that there used to be
a big developing machine with an operator at the Rite Aid, and you
handed your exposed film to them. They made prints for you.
Now it's self-service and automated. There are completely self-service
checkouts at Home Depot....
In a way, your H1B example was Schumpeterian - it used cheap air travel
to substitute people in.
[/quote]
Again! The problem is one of distribution. If the people displaced by
the H1B's had been properly compensated then the influx would have been
far less. But this was not the case. The owners of IP rights were the
primary beneficiaries at the cost of labor. It was distinctly anti-
utilitarian and it did not enhance technology or the US economy. It
might be argued that the H1B system, even before the big run up in 2000,
was part of what caused the NASDAQ bubble.
[quote]But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so
very, very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between population
growth and production that puts the poor at risk. This isn't the same
thing. It's closer to a Luddite observation - in the sense that
Luddism *really* means, not technophobia justified by Luddism
but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
I have no idea what part of "Marxism" you see as wrong.
The Malthusian parts. The foundation. *For people who have embraced
modernity*, there is no Malthus. Some people were prevented from this by
empire or something else, but they're catching up.
We really do stand athwart the corpse of scarcity. We won. Sure, there
are exceptions, but by-and-large....
[/quote]
I am not convinced by simple innovation that the distribution of "good"
is adequate. To claim that the American labor force has gained as a
result of innovation and free trade is simply a lie. From the point of
view of American producers, it has been far worse that a zero sum game.
And when you say "we won" you are talking about the rentier.
[quote]Certainly the
idea that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the rentier is
hokum. But democratic institutions are designed to avert that sort of
disaster by virtue of compromise. As to the "Singularity" I also have
to guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Yes, sorry - I should have been more specific. I don't mean some
dystopian sci-fi movie thing, just a gradual descent into a grayer
future. At least grayer until we adapt mores to fit the new reality.
When John Derbyshire says "the middle class is doomed", I listen.
[/quote]
Look past it at the reasons and find the distribution problem looking
right at you. The middle class can fail only because of the forces of
greed that deny education. Given even a modicum of education in simple
classical economics, and a true "republican form of government", the
middle class will survive quite well.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:25:05 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:40:11 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years
and prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal
late cycle uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline
discussed is on a slope of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus
years. One tick is one one hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I
don't think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus
and Marx was much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely
to see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that small
detail, they're just fine.
The politics of Marx have been proved wrong. Not the economics.
And Malthus was not tested until very recently except in China and
India where he was quite right and still is. Too many people.
Insufficient natural resources.
Well, I'm not sure what good he is, then. And to India and China -
they're following their own path out of Malthusian doom. When I say
"Malthus was wrong", that's a very complex phenomenon, and it might
be true only because Malthus said what he said. I don't know for
sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Henry Ford's wage scheme wasn't
a direct reaction to it.
As far as I am concerned Malthus and Ricardo had it about right.
[/quote]
No surprise that the best you ever managed was truck driver, for a while.
[quote]You get to the point where we were prior to the "New World" (1700
or so when the USA started to be economically significant) and natural
resources were insufficient to the health and wealth of the total population.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
the best you ever managed was truck driver, for a while.
[quote]Then we have the industrial revolution in there that
_DOES_ alleviate much of the starvation and deprivation.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
the best you ever managed was truck driver, for a while.
The industrial revolution in fact produced a lot more of both.
[quote]When I was a Libertarian (age 30) I used to say that all those
wretches slaving away in those factories were the dead people.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
the best you ever managed was truck driver, for a while.
[quote]Had they stayed on the farms they would have starved.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
the best you ever managed was truck driver, for a while.
They ones that did stay on the farms didnt starve.
[quote]Same with the Chinese and the Indians
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]but it may well be that the population will not again overrun the technology.
[/quote]
So Malthus was just plain wrong, fuckwit.
[quote]If Malthus was wrong
[/quote]
No if about it.
[quote]it is education and knowledge of history that will prevent the recurrence.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always. It was actually the industrialisation of food
production and the first world that isnt even self replacing if
you take out immigration that proved Malthus just plain wrong.
It remains to be seen if that not even self replacing will eventually
spread to all of the second word and the third world.
[quote]In today's world it is the emergence of women as
something other than baby factories that is saving us.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
the best you ever managed was truck driver, for a while.
[quote]The bottom line is that increasing population
drives up rent and technology relieves it.
[/quote]
It aint about rent.
[quote]And rent is the bad boy that harms us all.
[/quote]
It aint about rent.
[quote]Marx did not give rent its due and indicted innovation and technology (as
based on greed) along with outright exploitation by enclosure as a culprit.
[/quote]
And completely fucked up on who would eventually rule the roost.
[quote]Henry George was willing to tolerate the ego and the selfishness in regard to capital.
[/quote]
And never ever amounted to a hill of beans policy wise.
[quote]Today, the term "producer surplus" encompasses BOTH
exploitation by innovation and exploitation by enclosure.
And what the neoclassicals and the financiers and accountants
do with the word "profit" would make a magician proud.
[/quote]
Its all just piss and wind.
[quote]But what I'm talking about isn't quite the same thing. It's a gradual
eroding of the social norms about work - and IMO, it's been building
for a long time.
People won't starve because stuff's just not there, but they might
live less well because opportunity to earn money is not available.
In my own alleged mind "less well" has a different meaning than that
which is defined by the neoconomist. Lip gloss and fast cars have
much less appeal and importance. The time to do what I am doing
presently is much more important to me than earning a TV set (I don't
have one and probably won't get one any tome soon). I am pretty
happy with my life though many would consider me to be poor.
And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02.
There was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that
societal forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that
picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
The "uptick" from 98 to 2002 was a technology boom reinforced by a
1997 bubble blowing tax cut for the rich. It ended with the influx
of a zillion H1B's from India in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B#Congressional_yearly_numerical_cap
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, that was pretty odious.
But if nothing else,
it illustrates the point I'm trying to make - labor has no *natural*
allies as things progress. I think Henry Ford found himself an ally
of labor, and it helped him win in the marketplace.
Later, FDR was faced with either dealing with the seedier side of
*organized* labor ( who were using Mob muscle, because they were
somewhat outside the law because of factors outside their control )
or not being able to do Lend Lease. And that's when organized Labor
began to be more of a normalized part of society.
And one effect of that ( however slight ) is to reduce the penury in
China and India. To the extent that they can develop middle classes,
I'm derned if I can oppose it, even if it has made my life a little
less easy.
but does any of this apply to our present situation? We can't go
back, at least I don't know how we can. This state of affairs seems
to reflect the actual beliefs and desires of people.
When I look I hear the word "recovery" I want to puke.
[/quote]
Typical senile fart.
[quote]It implies a reinstatement of what was.
[/quote]
Nope, just a return to a decent economy, stupid.
[quote]And what was is not sustainable and is not for the good.
[/quote]
It is with the worst excesses avoided.
[quote]What happened in the 90's was (until the Republican tax
cut for the rich in 1997) sustainable given a little more
(not a lot more) use of tariffs and immigration controls.
[/quote]
It was sustainable without tariffs too.
[quote]As much as I rage against privatization of rent I must confess that this
is what I am doing with my concept of national enclosure. And I am
being rather Royal Libertarian and Republican Conservative about it.
[/quote]
Just another senile old rabid fool, actually.
[quote]I am saying that this is American land and you can't have it.
[/quote]
Too late for that now.
Its always been one of the massive downsides of getting the
basics right, hordes that were too stupid to do that pour in.
And when so many of them can get in so easily, you're fucked.
[quote]And we will use OUR ownership of all OUR natural resources
to live the good life while you other people learn to control your
procreation tendencies. It is your overpopulation that is causing
your penury.
[/quote]
Yes, but while ever so many of them can pour in so easily, you're fucked.
Fortunately most do get a clue on procreation after a generation or two.
[quote]Yet I/we have no control over the political and
religious views of those living outside these borders.
[/quote]
And even less with those living inside those boarders too.
[quote]And I do not want to adopt those moralities that I know
are disadvantageous to prosperity by supporting such
moralities or inviting them to possibly harm my own. "Morality"
is from the Latin "moralis" which means "of manner and custom". I
resent and deplore my own self righteousness, but it is the way it is.
[/quote]
You could always do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.
[quote]Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean
of overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all
thought that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve
than below it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap....
Dance, dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural
world and the realities of the natural world.
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
The data you look at are reflections of what happened and are not
indicative of cause.
No, we have to theorize about causes.
That is a principle that Peter Drucker repeats in his books.
It's the founding ideal of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed,
I'd like to see the graph drawn all the way back. Part of what
it says is that capital shoulders mroe and more of the burden,
that we live increasingly not by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a "share".
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
No. It does not. Capital development and use does that. An
unused hammer or an imagined thorium reactor is pretty useless.
Yes, but there is a class of capital that *replaces* labor.
You are looking at labor as a commodity and as a factor
of production and I am looking at labor as a human being.
[/quote]
Nope, you're just mindlessly pig ignorantly raving on, as always.
[quote]The basis of all economics is in fact a two factor system in which you have
man (labor - consumer) and land (natural environment - the natural world).
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]And all political economy is devoted to increasing the
long run utility of the natural world as regards man.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]All political and earthy moral contrivances are attempts to improve utility.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]As labor and consumer are quite inseparable
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]then man/labor is never "replaced".
[/quote]
Try telling that to those who have completely automated vast swathes of
what we do, like connecting phone calls without any operators etc etc etc.
[quote]To do so would defy the actual objective.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland,
most obviously with automatic telephone exchanges.
You're completely off with the fucking fairys as always.
[quote]But if you look at labor as that which no man actually _WANTS_ to
do/consume, as though it was castorbean oil, then we can abide the
notion of capital replacing the labor.
[/quote]
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
[quote]Yet we are now concerned with distribution.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]We have, for the last 30 years been focused far too heavily on
allocation and productivity and too little focused on distribution.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]The unemployment rate is the _ONLY_ current metric that is
indicative of economic performance or political economy at all.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always. The participation rate is much more important.
[quote]It represents the degree to which proper distribution has failed.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]Focusing on GDP is just plain stupid.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
Its the reason so many keep pouring into the US, stupid.
[quote]Only people get a "share".
Is this supposed to be profound?
No. It is simply reality.
"Capital" in this case means the machines "do the work"
and the people who own them get the money. I thought
it would be insulting to say that at first, though.
It is still insulting. No matter how you say it in the current system
the insult remains. What has happened is that the holy grail of
ownership of the productive means has been morally elevated to the
point where it has become destructive of the aggregate or general
prosperity.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
[quote]The moral justification for ownership is that it enhances
the general utility. When that ceases to be the case
[/quote]
It hasnt.
[quote]then ownership has become economically perverse.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a
"share". The land does not have its hand out nor does the road,
the bridge, the loom, or the computer. The source of all GOODS
is labor applied to the natural world called "land", and of these
two only labor (productive human effort of all kinds) requires a
"share" to draw it into the production process. When we look at
"shares" of productive output (and that is what all compensation
is), we have the Austrians and others tying to add a new
production factor and call it "entrepreneurship" and then we have
the marginalists trying to subsume land into capital and end up
with a two factor theory of production that simply ignores people
and treats them as robots called labor while glorifying ownership
(in the guise of capital of course which includes land). The
reality is exactly the way Marx calls it. The human race divides
as owners and producers. A constant struggle between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a
declining factor of production"? No labor, no production. No
land, no production. Capital may magnify production but without
both land an labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land
simply "exists" of its own accord then labor is what creates
goods. There is no Good Fairy.
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor
with capital goods.
No. It is possible to increase the output of labor. But it is not
possible to "replace" labor with capital. The owner of capital
splits the gain with the proprietor of capital. At a minimum, labor
is used to produce all capital. And labor must then _use_ the
capital. What the capital does is to allow increased productivity.
And hence the curves. Right. This is what is meant by "labor is a
declining factor of production".
Then say that ownership is an increasing factor of
production and be done with it. Because that is the reality.
[/quote]
Like hell it is.
[quote]Whether the production factor is land or capital it is ownership that is
taking too great share of production and this is not economically positive.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]Within the confines of proper political economy, owners are entitled
to a larger share of production only as an incentive to the development
of capital and/or proper long run use of natural resources. When this
balance is incorrect, the current metric that exposes the imbalance
is unemployment. Increasing reward to ownership is not going to
correct the imbalance, nor is any liberalization of procreation.
[/quote]
Meaningless waffle.
[quote]John Derbyshire tells the story of getting vacation photo prints at
Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor
to be a declining factor of production unless labor is being
robbed by coercion and force.
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
repeat
If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is naturally
occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor
required to further production then labor should benefit as much
as ownership and perhaps even more.
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But
perhaps an arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless
we wish to simply abandon consumerism altogether.
It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to
_sell_ lip gloss, fancy clothing, and other crap is rather a waste.
Odd, because they seem to work...
Your definition of "it works" is based on GDP.
[/quote]
Nope, prosperity.
[quote]Your definition short changes environment and leisure.
[/quote]
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
[quote]If we all work 90 hours a week then the GDP explodes as the environment deteriorates
[/quote]
That doesnt follow.
[quote]and the quality of life sucks.
[/quote]
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
[quote]Humans _MUST_ consume or die. And it is human demand for food and
such that drives any economy. The ego seems to drive much of what
you call "consumerism"
By that term I mean widespread consumption of a higher order than
before. Whether that continues is an open question. It has many enemies.
I b one of em. 
[/quote]
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
You're just a failed truck driver that couldnt even
manage to end up with a decent standard of living.
[quote]but it is important to remember that discomfort (e.g. hunger) is the
force which impels us to labor. And it is the discomfort of labor
that compels us to create capital.
This ignores Schumepterian forces. Derb's point is that there used
to be a big developing machine with an operator at the Rite Aid, and
you handed your exposed film to them. They made prints for you.
Now it's self-service and automated. There are completely
self-service checkouts at Home Depot....
In a way, your H1B example was Schumpeterian - it used cheap air
travel to substitute people in.
Again! The problem is one of distribution.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]If the people displaced by the H1B's had been properly
compensated then the influx would have been far less.
[/quote]
No one is THAT stupid. You cant compete with Indians ? Out on your lard arse you go.
[quote]But this was not the case. The owners of IP rights
were the primary beneficiaries at the cost of labor.
[/quote]
And fools like you get to like that or lump it.
[quote]It was distinctly anti- utilitarian and it did not enhance technology or the US economy.
[/quote]
Wrong with that last.
[quote]It might be argued that the H1B system, even before the big
run up in 2000, was part of what caused the NASDAQ bubble.
[/quote]
Only by pig ignorant fools and failed truck drivers.
[quote]But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so
very, very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between
population growth and production that puts the poor at risk. This
isn't the same thing. It's closer to a Luddite observation - in
the sense that Luddism *really* means, not technophobia justified
by Luddism
but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
I have no idea what part of "Marxism" you see as wrong.
The Malthusian parts. The foundation. *For people who have embraced
modernity*, there is no Malthus. Some people were prevented from
this by empire or something else, but they're catching up.
We really do stand athwart the corpse of scarcity. We won.
Sure, there are exceptions, but by-and-large....
I am not convinced by simple innovation that the distribution of "good" is adequate.
[/quote]
Your problem.
[quote]To claim that the American labor force has gained
as a result of innovation and free trade is simply a lie.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]From the point of view of American producers,
it has been far worse that a zero sum game.
[/quote]
Their problem.
[quote]And when you say "we won" you are talking about the rentier.
[/quote]
Nope, the consumers that got much cheaper consumer goods.
[quote]Certainly the idea that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow
the rentier is hokum. But democratic institutions are designed
to avert that sort of disaster by virtue of compromise. As to
the "Singularity" I also have to guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Yes, sorry - I should have been more specific. I don't mean some
dystopian sci-fi movie thing, just a gradual descent into a grayer
future. At least grayer until we adapt mores to fit the new reality.
When John Derbyshire says "the middle class is doomed", I listen.
Look past it at the reasons and find the distribution problem
looking right at you. The middle class can fail only because
of the forces of greed that deny education.
[/quote]
They've ALWAYS been capable of putting in place decent education.
In fact its the middle class that did that in the first place.
[quote]Given even a modicum of education in simple classical
economics, and a true "republican form of government",
the middle class will survive quite well.
[/quote]
The middle class survives ANYTHING, even losing world wars and great depressions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DanInPhilly... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
[quote]Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
[/quote]
(The second chart doesn't make sense -- labor share isn't greater than 100%.
It's around 2/3, i.e. 60-70%)
True, labor's share of the economy has been decreasing over the past two
decades. But that's only a minor trend. The important trend is the
divergence between skilled labor and unskilled labor. Capital is replacing
unskilled labor (robots on assembly lines instead of workers), but skilled
labor is needed to design, build and operate the robots.
"Skilled labor. " That probably describes most people in this NG. Anyone
else feel guilty??
Dan in Philly |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:25:05 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:40:11 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/
iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
FTA: "...It still shows that labor payments as a share of nonfarm
business total ouput has declined sharply over the last 20 years and
prior to the latest cycle we did not even see the normal late cycle
uptick in labor's share." The rate of decline discussed is on a
slope of 102 ticks to 94 ticks in 20 plus years. One tick is one one
hundredth of a base index of 1992.
He goes on to meet Malthus and Marx in the middle. I won't - I don't
think that we're hurting per se. The context of Malthus and Marx was
much more dire ( SFAIK ) than anything we're likely to see.
What silliness. Malthus and Marx together describe what is called
reality.
Except they've both been *proven* wrong. Other than that small detail,
they're just fine.
The politics of Marx have been proved wrong. Not the economics. And
Malthus was not tested until very recently except in China and India
where he was quite right and still is. Too many people. Insufficient
natural resources.
Well, I'm not sure what good he is, then. And to India and China -
they're following their own path out of Malthusian doom. When I say
"Malthus was wrong", that's a very complex phenomenon, and it might be
true only because Malthus said what he said. I don't know for sure, but
I wouldn't be surprised if Henry Ford's wage scheme wasn't a direct
reaction to it.
As far as I am concerned Malthus and Ricardo had it about right. You get
to the point where we were prior to the "New World" (1700 or so when the
USA started to be economically significant) and natural resources were
insufficient to the health and wealth of the total population. Then we
have the industrial revolution in there that _DOES_ alleviate much of the
starvation and deprivation.
[/quote]
But really, until the potato gave Europe a great deal more
arable land, Malthus wasn't that far off. We forget ( me
especially ) that agriculture kinda lagged, for at least a hundred
years. Around 1850, it accelerated dramatically.
[quote]When I was a Libertarian (age 30) I used to
say that all those wretches slaving away in those factories were the dead
people. Had they stayed on the farms they would have starved. Same with
the Chinese and the Indians but it may well be that the population will
not again overrun the technology.
[/quote]
Eh, we just finished off one layer of the onion. The hard problems
never really go away. But the problem has, at least, moved
up Maslow's Hierarchy a bit. The Brits gave Malthus a pretty
good strengthening in India.
[quote]If Malthus was wrong it is education
and knowledge of history that will prevent the recurrence. In today's
world it is the emergence of women as something other than baby factories
that is saving us. The bottom line is that increasing population drives
up rent and technology relieves it.
[/quote]
YEP! No argument here.
[quote]And rent is the bad boy that harms
us all. Marx did not give rent its due and indicted innovation and
technology (as based on greed) along with outright exploitation by
enclosure as a culprit. Henry George was willing to tolerate the ego and
the selfishness in regard to capital.
[/quote]
He wanted to have his toys and eat, too.
[quote]Today, the term "producer surplus"
encompasses BOTH exploitation by innovation and exploitation by
enclosure. And what the neoclassicals and the financiers and accountants
do with the word "profit" would make a magician proud.
[/quote]
but could you or I buttonhole some poor schlub in a Starbucks
and go on about this with him? No. We couldn't - even as much as
you and I disagree, we know what the story is.
That looks insurmountable to me. And, don't get me wrong - the
actual effects of rent are undermined severely by information
technology and other factors.
[quote]But what I'm talking about isn't quite the same thing. It's a gradual
eroding of the social norms about work - and IMO, it's been building for
a long time.
People won't starve because stuff's just not there, but they might live
less well because opportunity to earn money is not available.
In my own alleged mind "less well" has a different meaning than that
which is defined by the neoconomist.
[/quote]
Certainly.
[quote]Lip gloss and fast cars have much
less appeal and importance. The time to do what I am doing presently is
much more important to me than earning a TV set (I don't have one and
probably won't get one any tome soon). I am pretty happy with my life
though many would consider me to be poor.
[/quote]
I can't abide the thought of giving up CSPAN, PBS and a handful of
truly great serial dramas on basic cable. Of course, those may
be online now, but they're worth it.
[quote]And, to be fair, we've had them to defend ourselves against what
they've said. And there's a pretty good uptick from '98 to '02.
There was strong momentum for a while. I would emphasize that
societal forces also intervened. Many, many sources caused that
picture.
"Lets make lots of smoke and do a tap dance" said Les.
"Let's make irrelevant red-herring comments." said Micheal.
The "uptick" from 98 to 2002 was a technology boom reinforced by a 1997
bubble blowing tax cut for the rich. It ended with the influx of a
zillion H1B's from India in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B#Congressional_yearly_numerical_cap
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, that was pretty odious.
But if nothing else,
it illustrates the point I'm trying to make - labor has no *natural*
allies as things progress. I think Henry Ford found himself an ally of
labor, and it helped him win in the marketplace.
Later, FDR was faced with either dealing with the seedier side of
*organized* labor ( who were using Mob muscle, because they were
somewhat outside the law because of factors outside their control ) or
not being able to do Lend Lease. And that's when organized Labor began
to be more of a normalized part of society.
And one effect of that ( however slight ) is to reduce the penury in
China and India. To the extent that they can develop middle classes, I'm
derned if I can oppose it, even if it has made my life a little less
easy.
but does any of this apply to our present situation? We can't go back,
at least I don't know how we can. This state of affairs seems to reflect
the actual beliefs and desires of people.
When I look I hear the word "recovery" I want to puke. It implies a
reinstatement of what was. And what was is not sustainable and is not
for the good. What happened in the 90's was (until the Republican tax cut
for the rich in 1997) sustainable given a little more (not a lot more)
use of tariffs and immigration controls. As much as I rage against
privatization of rent I must confess that this is what I am doing with my
concept of national enclosure.
[/quote]
Yes. I understand your reasons, but I can't go there myself.
[quote]And I am being rather Royal Libertarian
and Republican Conservative about it. I am saying that this is American
land and you can't have it. And we will use OUR ownership of all OUR
natural resources to live the good life while you other people learn to
control your procreation tendencies. It is your overpopulation that is
causing your penury.
[/quote]
I hear you. I think that by allowing some immigration, we continue to
establish a standard for the rest of the world, though. My friend who
is from China and has a PhD does not want to go back, for his kids'
sake. To me, that's what sets us apart.
[quote]Yet I/we have no control over the political and religious views of those
living outside these borders. And I do not want to adopt those
moralities that I know are disadvantageous to prosperity by supporting
such moralities or inviting them to possibly harm my own. "Morality" is
from the Latin "moralis" which means "of manner and custom". I resent
and deplore my own self righteousness, but it is the way it is.
[/quote]
Well, I have an understanding of it, but I just get a different answer
when I do the math. In a way, the State *is* withering away, or at
least morphing into something not quite like it was.
[quote]Indeed, one may look at now as a potential regression to a mean of
overcompensation established in the '90s. No doubt we've all thought
that. There is more area, paradoxically, above the curve than below
it.
Lets use curves... yes.... That's the ticket. tap, tap, tap....
Dance, dance, dance.
But this is relatively clear empirical evidence that *labor is a
declining factor in production.*
It is clear evidence that the curves do not reflect the natural world
and the realities of the natural world.
Gee, since the data are taken *from* the natural world...
The data you look at are reflections of what happened and are not
indicative of cause.
No, we have to theorize about causes.
That is a principle that Peter Drucker repeats in his books. It's
the founding ideal of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, I'd like to
see the graph drawn all the way back. Part of what it says is that
capital shoulders mroe and more of the burden, that we live
increasingly not by our hands but by our network.
So what about, being pessimistic and assuming the line is a rough
center, in 40 years, when labor's share is 78%?
I have no doubt that we can adapt, but how?
Capital should not get a "share" any more than land should get a
"share".
Capital increases the rates of production. Clearly.
No. It does not. Capital development and use does that. An unused
hammer or an imagined thorium reactor is pretty useless.
Yes, but there is a class of capital that *replaces* labor.
You are looking at labor as a commodity
[/quote]
.... no. Only in the sense that there are substitutes for labor. Indeed,
the shear between these two poles is what I am complaining about.
[quote]and as a factor of production and
I am looking at labor as a human being. The basis of all economics is in
fact a two factor system in which you have man (labor - consumer) and
land (natural environment - the natural world). And all political
economy is devoted to increasing the long run utility of the natural
world as regards man. All political and earthy moral contrivances are
attempts to improve utility. As labor and consumer are quite inseparable
then man/labor is never "replaced". To do so would defy the actual
objective.
[/quote]
but we each have two roles - one as producer, another as consumer. And
those must be in balance, somehow. At some tipping point, we'll be able
to consume more than we produce without straining the capacity of *the
system* to produce.
[quote]But if you look at labor as that which no man actually _WANTS_ to do/
consume, as though it was castorbean oil, then we can abide the notion
of capital replacing the labor. Yet we are now concerned with
distribution. We have, for the last 30 years been focused far too
heavily on allocation and productivity and too little focused on
distribution.
[/quote]
We don't have the tools for it.
[quote]The unemployment rate is the _ONLY_ current metric that is
indicative of economic performance or political economy at all.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]It
represents the degree to which proper distribution has failed. Focusing
on GDP is just plain stupid.
[/quote]
No, because GDP is a measure of how far the wolf is from our door,
*shudder* collectively. In the "aggregate" sense of the word. Now,
if GDP includes Geithner-gifts to AIG, then it certainly loses meaning.
But from an engineering standpoint, from an information-theoretic
sense, we really can't say what's "proper".
[quote]Only people get a "share".
Is this supposed to be profound?
No. It is simply reality.
"Capital" in this case means the machines "do the work" and the people
who own them get the money. I thought it would be insulting to say that
at first, though.
It is still insulting. No matter how you say it in the current system
the insult remains. What has happened is that the holy grail of
ownership of the productive means has been morally elevated to the point
where it has become destructive of the aggregate or general prosperity.
[/quote]
I can't help that. the productivity multipliers for one are
greater than for the other.
[quote]The moral justification for ownership is that it enhances the general
utility. When that ceases to be the case then ownership has become
economically perverse.
[/quote]
Yarg. I know what you mean, but... that requires an extra complicated
measurement apparatus, one that presently does not exist. Remember,
a lot of why the neocons did what they did was that they were looking
for the keys under where the streetlight shone.
[quote]A tractor has no desire for a
"share", only the people that actually PRODUCE should get a "share".
The land does not have its hand out nor does the road, the bridge,
the loom, or the computer. The source of all GOODS is labor applied
to the natural world called "land", and of these two only labor
(productive human effort of all kinds) requires a "share" to draw it
into the production process. When we look at "shares" of productive
output (and that is what all compensation is), we have the Austrians
and others tying to add a new production factor and call it
"entrepreneurship" and then we have the marginalists trying to
subsume land into capital and end up with a two factor theory of
production that simply ignores people and treats them as robots
called labor while glorifying ownership (in the guise of capital of
course which includes land). The reality is exactly the way Marx
calls it. The human race divides as owners and producers. A
constant struggle between the two.
Don't you realize the idiocy of a statement like "labor is a
declining factor of production"? No labor, no production. No land,
no production. Capital may magnify production but without both land
an labor capital could ever exist at all. and as land simply "exists"
of its own accord then labor is what creates goods. There is no Good
Fairy.
But here on the planet Earth, it is possible to *replace* labor with
capital goods.
No. It is possible to increase the output of labor. But it is not
possible to "replace" labor with capital. The owner of capital splits
the gain with the proprietor of capital. At a minimum, labor is used to
produce all capital. And labor must then _use_ the capital. What the
capital does is to allow increased productivity.
And hence the curves. Right. This is what is meant by "labor is a
declining factor of production".
Then say that ownership is an increasing factor of production and be done
with it. Because that is the reality.
[/quote]
Oh, I think so. And the only socially viable solution is to
somehow change the very nature of ownership. Otherwise, the
markets break down. This is EXActly what I mean.
But man, this is tough.
[quote]Whether the production factor is
land or capital it is ownership that is taking too great share of
production and this is not economically positive. Within the confines of
proper political economy, owners are entitled to a larger share of
production only as an incentive to the development of capital and/or
proper long run use of natural resources.
[/quote]
No, they're entitled to the extent that they can produce with it. And
productivity is strongly correlated with the best in husbandry.
[quote]When this balance is
incorrect, the current metric that exposes the imbalance is unemployment.
Increasing reward to ownership is not going to correct the imbalance, nor
is any liberalization of procreation.
[/quote]
I do not have an answer. Somebody much, much smarter than me will
have to suss this out. But I expect that rents are the key, somehow.
[quote]John Derbyshire tells the story of getting vacation photo prints at
Rite-Aid on his recent BookTv segment:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/book-tv-john-derbyshire/EP002777953645
Therefore, as land is fixed, it is utterly impossible for labor to be
a declining factor of production unless labor is being robbed by
coercion and force.
No, labor *is being replaced by machinery*. At least here on Earth.
repeat
If capital (which is produced by labor on land that is naturally
occurring and hence cost free) reduces the amount of labor required
to further production then labor should benefit as much as ownership
and perhaps even more.
No, because less of it, relative to capital, is needed. But perhaps an
arrangement of that sort may be needed, unless we wish to simply
abandon consumerism altogether.
It has little to do with consumerism although the current efforts to
_sell_ lip gloss, fancy clothing, and other crap is rather a waste.
Odd, because they seem to work...
Your definition of "it works" is based on GDP. Your definition short
changes environment and leisure. If we all work 90 hours a week then the
GDP explodes as the environment deteriorates and the quality of life
sucks.
[/quote]
GDP explodes, than then we have a recession.
[quote]Humans _MUST_ consume or die. And it is human demand for food and such
that drives any economy. The ego seems to drive much of what you call
"consumerism"
By that term I mean widespread consumption of a higher order than
before. Whether that continues is an open question. It has many enemies.
I b one of em. :)
[/quote]
I'm not particularly. I know enough about the shades of production to
know that it matters more what some poor schlub projects demand to be
than what it is.
People spent 2 or 3 on a Lexus because... it demonstrated they had the
credit rating to be bored with a Toyota.
[quote]but it is important to remember that discomfort (e.g. hunger) is the
force which impels us to labor. And it is the discomfort of labor that
compels us to create capital.
This ignores Schumepterian forces. Derb's point is that there used to be
a big developing machine with an operator at the Rite Aid, and you
handed your exposed film to them. They made prints for you.
Now it's self-service and automated. There are completely self-service
checkouts at Home Depot....
In a way, your H1B example was Schumpeterian - it used cheap air travel
to substitute people in.
Again! The problem is one of distribution. If the people displaced by
the H1B's had been properly compensated then the influx would have been
far less. But this was not the case. The owners of IP rights were the
primary beneficiaries at the cost of labor.
[/quote]
but ... gravely, we must consider the *customers* of the owners
of those IP rights and they probably have to come first.
[quote]It was distinctly anti-
utilitarian
[/quote]
You say that like it's a bad thing. The problem with it was that people
thrashed perfectly good companies out of existence in a fit of
competitive nihilism, because they didn't have any more brains or
imagination than to do exactly that.
[quote]and it did not enhance technology or the US economy.
[/quote]
I respectfully disagree. The downstream effects have been enormous.
However... they haven't made anybody's job more secure...
[quote]It
might be argued that the H1B system, even before the big run up in 2000,
was part of what caused the NASDAQ bubble.
[/quote]
No, I think the sheer level of insanity in the media suffices.
Bubbles are positive feedback loops, and always look for the
return leg ( in this case, the media ) for blame. Enrons was
the mosts ADMIREDS COMPANYS EBVERS! you know.
*Cough*. That hurt.
[quote]But I certainly, certainly, certainly *KNOW* that Marxism is oh so
very, very wrong. It depends on a dynamic tension between population
growth and production that puts the poor at risk. This isn't the same
thing. It's closer to a Luddite observation - in the sense that
Luddism *really* means, not technophobia justified by Luddism
but trying to wish the Singularity away won't work.
I have no idea what part of "Marxism" you see as wrong.
The Malthusian parts. The foundation. *For people who have embraced
modernity*, there is no Malthus. Some people were prevented from this by
empire or something else, but they're catching up.
We really do stand athwart the corpse of scarcity. We won. Sure, there
are exceptions, but by-and-large....
I am not convinced by simple innovation that the distribution of "good"
is adequate. To claim that the American labor force has gained as a
result of innovation and free trade is simply a lie. From the point of
view of American producers, it has been far worse that a zero sum game.
And when you say "we won" you are talking about the rentier.
[/quote]
Well, I think that most people are mostly above a threshold of
being seriously at risk. But I climb the Maslow pyramid by
going around the economy, so maybe I'm not a good resource for
that.
[quote]Certainly the
idea that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the rentier is
hokum. But democratic institutions are designed to avert that sort of
disaster by virtue of compromise. As to the "Singularity" I also have
to guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Yes, sorry - I should have been more specific. I don't mean some
dystopian sci-fi movie thing, just a gradual descent into a grayer
future. At least grayer until we adapt mores to fit the new reality.
When John Derbyshire says "the middle class is doomed", I listen.
Look past it at the reasons and find the distribution problem looking
right at you.
[/quote]
Yessir. This'd be my point. You and he are in violent agreement, and he
knows no more what to do about it than you or I.
"And so we are doomed." which is Pythonesque in its self-parody. he
doesn't believe that, either.
We just dunno what comes next.
[quote]The middle class can fail only because of the forces of
greed that deny education. Given even a modicum of education in simple
classical economics, and a true "republican form of government", the
middle class will survive quite well.
[/quote]
The middle class is eating the bloated corpse of what used to pass
for education quite nicely. Oh, we'll be delivered the next little
cadre of soulless functionaries, don't you worry. The supply is
endless.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DanInPhilly wrote
[quote]Les Cargill wrote
Spencer from Angry Bear today shot one across the bow.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/labors-share.html
Here's the rather grimly-framed picture that caught my eye:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
(The second chart doesn't make sense
[/quote]
Yes it does.
[quote]-- labor share isn't greater than 100%.
[/quote]
Yes, but its just chosen 1992 as 100, and the scale isnt %
[quote]It's around 2/3, i.e. 60-70%)
True, labor's share of the economy has been decreasing over the past
two decades. But that's only a minor trend. The important trend is the
divergence between skilled labor and unskilled labor. Capital is replacing unskilled labor (robots on assembly lines
instead of workers), but skilled labor is needed to design, build and operate the robots.
[/quote]
Yes, but quite a bit of skilled work is being replaced as well,
most obviously researchers etc being replaced by google etc.
[quote]"Skilled labor. " That probably describes most people in this NG.
[/quote]
Very likely.
[quote]Anyone else feel guilty??
[/quote]
Nothing to feel guilty about. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:33 am
|
|