- Messages
- 40,417
i know you just want to fire everyone and be able to work them to death whenever you want.
A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon
- Thread starter Grand Potentate
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,765
Not everyone, just you.
- Messages
- 12,494
No, I'd much rather keep them long term. I just saved one of my guys cars from getting repo'd this week alone to help out. I give more interest free loans the Bank of freaking America.
The funny part is you guys are your grand employment theories gleaned from ZeroHedge, Ian Whatshisface, et al. Overtime is wildly unprofitable, only a complete loon would argue otherwise. It's why they just made a floor on who can be on salary, specifically to keep people from being worked to death.
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
80% is definitely a low estimate.
A good (though not peer reviewed) overview of the topic, light on econometrics, and not behind a paywall:
http://conexus.cberdata.org/files/MfgReality.pdf
On mobile, but next time I'm at a computer, I can grab some of the harder stuff. Can I upload PDFs on this platform?
- Messages
- 12,494
Yep.
- Messages
- 40,417
i'm sure the forum will give me a hefty retirement package.
yes and no. overtime is horrendous but its cheaper than hiring a new person and paying them benefits. i suspect when the new labor law gets put into place we'll see employers just bump people's salaries over the threshold then continue to work them like dogs. there's also a better than average chance the rule will get thrown out soon if trump's people have their way with it.
yep
- Messages
- 4,765
Why don't you sell the forum to huddler and nomanwalksalone?
- Messages
- 40,417
stupid morality of mine
- Messages
- 9,933
How does such a number get calculated? It seems almost impossible to quantify something like that. I'm not trying to shit on the figure you present to dispel the argument, but it seems like a number chucked around by globalists.
I guess my argument would be two fold... wouldn't this 80% number be true for the rest of the world? Or at least some variant of it?
And second, why hasn't this happened to Germany and Japan? If they also suffer from productivity, then why aren't they gutted like the US is? It doesn't add up.
- Messages
- 9,933
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/19/seven-problems-james-comeys-credibility/
Seven Problems With James Comey’s Credibility
Seven Problems With James Comey’s Credibility
- Messages
- 14,230
Presidential portrait
Scherensammler
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,557
Can't speak for Japan, but Germany is gutted. Pay rises way behind inflation, millions of people on benefits despite having a full time job.
The few people in manufacturing jobs agreed to income freezes to keep their jobs. Besides cars and special machinery (the latter will soon be made in China) there isn't really a lot that's made in Germany.
The former large textile sector (from RTW to bespoke, from yarn making to weaving) was destroyed decades ago and the jobs got moved elsewhere, most likely supported by the EU.
The only stuff made in Germany is high end (like tools that last a lifetime and don't break into pieces when you use them), everything else is cheap crap, ranging from clothes to items for your daily life.
High streets in Germany are just the same in every town or city. Brand stores, phone shops and lots of bakeries full with older and/ or obese folk. For some strange reason we have a lot of hair dressers, who seem to do only the lesbian hair cut.
Short, asymmetrical with dyed ends. And of course coffee shops, lots of coffee shops.
Germany has a strong export, but that is due to cars, machinery and pharmaceuticals/ chemical compounds. All high price goods that outweigh the cheap shit we import.
The government has rigged the system, so that the Jobcentre™ gets lower unemployment numbers. It's just putting unemployed people in different categories.
Not to mention that Germany suffers from a crushing debt, like the rest of the Western world.
Should the ratings change it would all be over soon.
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
From my understanding, the US is not alone in manufacturing job loss. Most countries with high wages and a largish manufacturing sector are dealing with it. In addition, many recently developed countries experienced most of their growth via capital intensive manufacturing as opposed to labor intensive manufacturing, so employment in their manufacturing sectors is being crunched less.
On a related note, there was a recent PWC report looking at automation--one important element of the increased efficiency of capital--and different sectors of in the British economy. The breakdown is interesting. It was also poorly interpreted by a bunch of headlines. The report, for example, stated that 44.8% (or something) of manufacturing jobs are at risk for automation in the next 15 years. A headline reporting this: 45% of UK manufacturing jobs will disappear in 15 years! Anyway, it goes into pink and white collar sectors too.
http://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/ukeo/pwc-uk-economic-outlook-full-report-march-2017-v2.pdf
A quick summary:
http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/201...-by-early-2030s-but-this-should-be-offse.html
It doesn't happen as much in places like China and India because of how low wages are, so the capital-labor trade off is less an issue.
The report I linked is from 2010 and does a great job explaining how it is calculated without delving into econometrics. While I was an economist at a public research institute for a spell, some of the econometrics in the real work is probably above me (especially as I've not been in the field for a while and have forgotten quite a bit). Regardless, this has been happening for a long time, long before people were up in arms about the losses to the manufacturing sector. This doesn't mean that losing jobs overseas isn't an issue. It just means that we are avoiding or ignoring the real cause for the sake of populism (Trump and Sanders both).
I'll see if I can upload some journal articles from the 90s as well.
- Messages
- 9,933
I import lots of stuff from Germany, for example Faber Castel. Pencils aren't exactly high end.
- Messages
- 40,417
in case any of your people were expecting reform at the FBI:
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/05...favorite-law-firms-joe-lieberman-run-fbi.html
Joe Lieberman Cannot Run The FBI Because He Works For One Of Donald Trump’s Favorite Law Firms
By Adalia Woodbury on Fri, May 19th, 2017 at 9:00 am
Joe Lieberman is the rumored front runner to replace James Comey as the new FBI director, and Trump is dreaming that because he’s a former Democratic Senator, Democrats will jump on board. Lieberman is no Robert Mueller. Mueller has support from Democrats because he has the experience needed to do the job and as important, he does not have ties to Donald Trump.
go to law firms.
As of this writing, Lieberman’s bio is on the firm’s website. It highlights his “investigative” skills as “United States Senator and Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. He is described as a “seasoned leader” who is skilled in the art of facilitating mutally beneficial and strategic agreements. Senator Lieberman also assists corporate clients on tax, healthcare, security and intellectual property matters. In addition, he counsels clients on international expansion initiatives and business plans.
This is a screengrab of Lieberman’s bio.
The firm has respresented Donald Trump on several matters. As reported by Newsweek, this is the law firm that threatened the New York Times with a legal action last October, when the NYT published some pages of Trump’s 1995 tax return. Later that month, Marc Kasowitz, a partner in the firm, wrote a threatening letter to the NYT demanding it retract an article about two women who claimed Trump touched them “inappropriately.”
The firm also sued an author on Trump’s behalf over suggestions that Trump is worth less than $1billion. When Trump wanted to keep his divorce records sealed, he Hired Kasowitz’s firm. The firm also did some work for Trump on the Trump University fraud case and sued Trump’s Hong Kong business partners over a Manhatten property. The Trump Organization’s general counsel, Alan Garten reportedly told the WSJ Kasowitz has “always been a guy you go to when you have complex, intricate legal problems.”
The fact that Lieberman works for one of the law firms that represents Donald Trump, alone disqualifies him because there is an obvious conflict of interest on any and all investigations regarding Donald Trump – like the Trump/Russia investigation.
Generally, Lieberman doesn’t pass the sniff test for the independence from Trump’s political influence that is crucial to do the job of FBI Director – even if Trump and others in his administration were not the subject of counter intelligence and/or criminal investigations.
Trump’s preference would be to shut down any investigation into his and his campaign’s relationship with Russia. His attempts to interfere with or discredit investigations by House and Senate committees are documented. He attempted to intimidate former FBI Director James Comey into dropping investigations against Michael Flynn and “the Russia thing”. When that failed, Trump fired Comey and tried to intimidate him again via Twitter, when word got out that Comey would testify to Congress.
By placing Lieberman as Director of the FBI, Trump is hoping to have eyes and ears on what would otherwise be a secret investigation by the Special Counsel. No doubt, Robert Mueller will have his own investigatory resources, but that doesn’t’ preclude involvement or cooperation with the FBI. If Lieberman is running the FBI, Trump has a pipeline to the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Even if we could ignore that big conflict of interest in the room that’s inevitable if one of the President’s lawyers were to run the FBI, Lieberman is sorely lacking the background and experience needed to do the job.
Lieberman’s bio on Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman website lists his qualifications to represent clients. What’s interesting is what the bio doesn’t say. Lieberman doesn’t have any notable experience as a criminal attorney listed in his bio, nor does the bio mention experience running an organization.
One can look to his experience as the Attorney-General of Connecticut, which is far from the sort of background in criminal law one would need to run the FBI.
Lieberman’s ties to Trump via Kasowitz et al, along with his lack of sufficient background in criminal law and running an organization suit Trump, as we see with so many other people he chose to be part of the Trump Administration. However, it is bad for America. We already have an incompetent and corrupt Administration, which is why we’re in this mess.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/05...favorite-law-firms-joe-lieberman-run-fbi.html
Joe Lieberman Cannot Run The FBI Because He Works For One Of Donald Trump’s Favorite Law Firms
By Adalia Woodbury on Fri, May 19th, 2017 at 9:00 am
Joe Lieberman is the rumored front runner to replace James Comey as the new FBI director, and Trump is dreaming that because he’s a former Democratic Senator, Democrats will jump on board. Lieberman is no Robert Mueller. Mueller has support from Democrats because he has the experience needed to do the job and as important, he does not have ties to Donald Trump.
go to law firms.
As of this writing, Lieberman’s bio is on the firm’s website. It highlights his “investigative” skills as “United States Senator and Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. He is described as a “seasoned leader” who is skilled in the art of facilitating mutally beneficial and strategic agreements. Senator Lieberman also assists corporate clients on tax, healthcare, security and intellectual property matters. In addition, he counsels clients on international expansion initiatives and business plans.
This is a screengrab of Lieberman’s bio.
The firm has respresented Donald Trump on several matters. As reported by Newsweek, this is the law firm that threatened the New York Times with a legal action last October, when the NYT published some pages of Trump’s 1995 tax return. Later that month, Marc Kasowitz, a partner in the firm, wrote a threatening letter to the NYT demanding it retract an article about two women who claimed Trump touched them “inappropriately.”
The firm also sued an author on Trump’s behalf over suggestions that Trump is worth less than $1billion. When Trump wanted to keep his divorce records sealed, he Hired Kasowitz’s firm. The firm also did some work for Trump on the Trump University fraud case and sued Trump’s Hong Kong business partners over a Manhatten property. The Trump Organization’s general counsel, Alan Garten reportedly told the WSJ Kasowitz has “always been a guy you go to when you have complex, intricate legal problems.”
The fact that Lieberman works for one of the law firms that represents Donald Trump, alone disqualifies him because there is an obvious conflict of interest on any and all investigations regarding Donald Trump – like the Trump/Russia investigation.
Generally, Lieberman doesn’t pass the sniff test for the independence from Trump’s political influence that is crucial to do the job of FBI Director – even if Trump and others in his administration were not the subject of counter intelligence and/or criminal investigations.
Trump’s preference would be to shut down any investigation into his and his campaign’s relationship with Russia. His attempts to interfere with or discredit investigations by House and Senate committees are documented. He attempted to intimidate former FBI Director James Comey into dropping investigations against Michael Flynn and “the Russia thing”. When that failed, Trump fired Comey and tried to intimidate him again via Twitter, when word got out that Comey would testify to Congress.
By placing Lieberman as Director of the FBI, Trump is hoping to have eyes and ears on what would otherwise be a secret investigation by the Special Counsel. No doubt, Robert Mueller will have his own investigatory resources, but that doesn’t’ preclude involvement or cooperation with the FBI. If Lieberman is running the FBI, Trump has a pipeline to the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Even if we could ignore that big conflict of interest in the room that’s inevitable if one of the President’s lawyers were to run the FBI, Lieberman is sorely lacking the background and experience needed to do the job.
Lieberman’s bio on Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman website lists his qualifications to represent clients. What’s interesting is what the bio doesn’t say. Lieberman doesn’t have any notable experience as a criminal attorney listed in his bio, nor does the bio mention experience running an organization.
One can look to his experience as the Attorney-General of Connecticut, which is far from the sort of background in criminal law one would need to run the FBI.
Lieberman’s ties to Trump via Kasowitz et al, along with his lack of sufficient background in criminal law and running an organization suit Trump, as we see with so many other people he chose to be part of the Trump Administration. However, it is bad for America. We already have an incompetent and corrupt Administration, which is why we’re in this mess.
- Messages
- 9,933
I do believe automation is going to destroy jobs. Especially driving trucks. 15 years seems optimistic.
But I'm not seeing where this 80% number is coming from. Sounds like globalists hiding behind the skirts of PhDs.
Scherensammler
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,557
Compared to the cheap shit coming from Chinese factories they are.
- Messages
- 9,933
Ok but high end manufacturing is like rockets and specialized equipment. Pencils are low end manufacturing, and there is still a lot of manufacturing like it in Germany.
You mean high quality manufacturing.
- Messages
- 12,494
5-10 years max.
ETA: Japan has been fucking moribund for twenty years. Anyone using Japan as an example of what to do is a waterhead. Except
Grand Potentate
- Messages
- 40,417
i have not brought them up as i know they have many issues over there. in fact, i was going to point out that japan would have been much better off not selling out and opening up. the made in japan logo could be worth a whole lot more now as a sign of superior quality.5-10 years max.
ETA: Japan has been fucking moribund for twenty years. Anyone using Japan as an example of what to do is a waterhead. Except
- Messages
- 12,494
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
Just to be clear, automation isn't the only way in which capital kills jobs. Any capital which increases labor productivity (like a lot of IT, for example) will also kill jobs in that industry because firms can reach the same level of output with fewer workers.
Which is why you go straight to the PhD's themselves. I don't know how many econ PhD's you know, but I know a lot. Different department from me, but there are a few I regularly have lunch with, and none of them have mentioned being a globalist stooge (to be fair, I haven't asked them, and even if I did, they'd probably not tell me). The one thing that academics, particularly economists, love as much as getting published is finding flaws in the methodologies of other papers (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?). There is a much stronger incentive system in place to ensure methodological rigor in economic academia than there is in, say, economists affiliated with banks or political entities.
The 2010 report linked provides a pretty straightforward explanation of one way to calculate it. The intuition is that you regress change in employment on labor productivity (output of industry/# of employees in the industry) using panel data and a fixed effects model.
Another brief:
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp171/
This guy is essentially arguing that globalization is an important explanation for manufacturing job loss and eventually arrives at a number of 20% (he is responding to another paper which arrived at 12%, which is pretty close to the 14% the 2010 report linked earlier arrived at).
Here is this one that looks at older data, 1979-1994. Like the first paper, it uses a fixed effects model but looks at trade explicitly rather than increases in productivity. It essentially looks at the degree of international competition each industry experiences as it relates to job loss (or gain) in that industry. It finds that there is some effect from overseas competition, but it does not provide a consistent explanation for manufacturing job loss across industries overall.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6198.pdf
- Messages
- 12,494
- Messages
- 9,933
- Messages
- 9,933
It already is. I have a lot of trouble connecting with Japanese factories, and I can't get the number of made in Japan products I want to carry. They are insular to the point where you can't do any business. But when you finally get thru, they are world class people.
- Messages
- 9,933
I am well aware. Tech is what the glitterati love to call "disruptors". None of this explains why Germany can keep manufacturing jobs, even if they experience downward pressure also.
That's sorta my point. People lie about their bias. Ask them why Germany can do it and America can't.
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
My point is that I don't need to ask them. I can just look at their data and methods.
It has happened in Germany. And like in the United States, outsourcing accounts for about 20% of the job loss in manufacturing.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/18048/1/dp313.pdf
20% of the overall job loss is still a lot of jobs, and a lot of lives, and it doesn't make Bernie or Don wrong when they say outsourcing and free trade has cost manufacturing jobs.
If you want a compelling argument against globalization, there are several, but job loss just isn't one of the good ones.
It has happened in Germany. And like in the United States, outsourcing accounts for about 20% of the job loss in manufacturing.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/18048/1/dp313.pdf
20% of the overall job loss is still a lot of jobs, and a lot of lives, and it doesn't make Bernie or Don wrong when they say outsourcing and free trade has cost manufacturing jobs.
If you want a compelling argument against globalization, there are several, but job loss just isn't one of the good ones.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 22,331
Meanwhile, the leaks keep coming:
Jared Kushner is a "person of interest" in the Russia probe.
Trump to Russians during their meeting:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job."
“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Jared Kushner is a "person of interest" in the Russia probe.
Trump to Russians during their meeting:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job."
“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
- Messages
- 9,933
And my point is that data and methods are like the media choosing to report selective facts. My ex wife is a PhD, I can tell you from experience that many of these over educated people start with a conclusion and wrap data and methods around them to suit the narrative.
- Messages
- 9,933
More bullshit anonymous quotes.
Trump says dumb things, stop the presses. Nothing illegal.
Next.
- Messages
- 22,331
Except it will push things forward with respect to investigations and prevent accomplishing things
- Messages
- 9,933
What crime was committed? Dershowitz shows why this is stupid. More smart people please, ones that don't make dumb twitter jokes, or are named Maxine.
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
And the one openly biased towards your point of view (that it's a major problem) and arriving at 20%? A plant? Actually, so was another one included, I can't remember her name, but she's an economist who has built her career looking at job loss in manufacturing in light of globalization and free trade and has a book about it. She definitely gains professionally from demonstrating that that relationship is as big as possible. The one that did the between industry fixed effects model I think. There are any number of economists who are broadly opposed to unfettered globalization (Stiglitz and Krugman come to mind as two Nobel Prize winners).
Isn't the more likely scenario simply that increases in labor productivity has led to massive job loss (as opposed to an entire field having such a strong bias towards globalism that they've been perpetuating this for close to a hundred years...I am recalling a major dissertation written in the early 30s on the topic...if not all the way to Marx, who argued that firms will always invest in capital to save on labor).
Anyway, I'd love to see some data which suggests that labor productivity isn't a major cause of job loss, or even the primary cause. That's Nobel Prize stuff right there as it flies in the face of economic common sense (production is a function of labor and capital; firms seek to reduce labor costs by investing in capital; quantity produced is limited by quantity demanded, which is out of firm hands, so increases in labor productivity does not result in a 1 for 1 increase in production but is instead split between increased production and reduction of labor). Or anything which suggests that jobs going overseas comes close to explaining as much job loss as increase in labor productivity.
This is not to say the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs haven't gone overseas over the last several decades. It's just that even more jobs have been lost because they were rendered unnecessary or inefficient by capital.
Though you know, I've never asked. Why do you think this isn't the case?
Edit: The dissertation I was thinking of: Alfred Kahler, Die Theorie der Arbeiterfreisetzung durch die Maschine (1932)
Last edited:
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia
Why liberal conspiracy theories are flourishing in the age of Trump.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
Also, say what you will about Trump, but it is very clear that his loyalty to his friends is beyond question.
And in other news, search interest on the topic of impeachment (US Google users):
Why liberal conspiracy theories are flourishing in the age of Trump.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
Also, say what you will about Trump, but it is very clear that his loyalty to his friends is beyond question.
And in other news, search interest on the topic of impeachment (US Google users):
Last edited:
- Messages
- 22,331
Crime/no crime. That is not the point. It erodes credibility. He is not smart enough to overcome the ever-increasing doubt. Pushes him further into lame duck territory.
- Messages
- 9,148
Cementing TIES with Progressive Democracies against terrorism.
.
- Messages
- 9,933
I think both are true. But there is a body of people out there that want to minimize the impact of the pick up and move to a cheaper country that started in the 80s. They are the ones backed by money that wants global corporatized government, and so I am very skeptical.
My eyes tell me that factories everywhere in the US have shifted production overseas. I just think this reality is minimized because it makes a lot of people look bad, so we get a lot of studies with big words, graphs and formulas.
- Messages
- 4,765
- Messages
- 9,933
Sort of actually is the point. There are people seeding doubt, with the intention of manufacturing a lame duck.
There is no crime, and somehow that is not the point? Even though Mueller is appointed for a criminal investigation?
- Messages
- 9,933
Lol because your eyes are on all factories in the US? All bow to the all-knowingOfficePants .
That's dumb.