hughes johnson
- 3
- 0
Adam said:Yep, there are all sorts of ways you can justify your denial.
Yes. That's why this is called a "forum".
Last edited:
The discussion centers on the implications of automation and technological advancements on the workforce, particularly in the context of capitalism. Participants highlight the emergence of "lights out plants," such as Orville Reddenbacher's in Colorado, where factories operate without human labor. The conversation emphasizes the potential for a widening wealth gap, with a small percentage of the population controlling the majority of wealth, and raises concerns about the future job market and the need for social safety nets to support displaced workers. The participants advocate for a rethinking of economic structures to ensure equitable distribution of wealth and job opportunities.
PREREQUISITESEconomists, labor market analysts, policymakers, and anyone interested in the future of work and the socio-economic implications of automation.
Adam said:Yep, there are all sorts of ways you can justify your denial.
hughes johnson said:Yes. That's why this is called a "forum".
I've never heard that before. Do you have a source?selfAdjoint said:You do know that the definition of unemployment was changed a few years ago, to make the numbers less scary. The people who weren't actively looking for jobs, who had been counted as unemployed before, were now dropped. So to compare, I've seen 5.5% unemployment under the new system equated to 7% under the old one. As for 6% being full employment, that of course is what employers like to believe, but nobody else does.
Speaking of selective - Adam's one year data from three years ago is about the very definition of selctive. I don't think its denial though...Quite so. But the fact that different opinions can be posted does not mean that all of them are correct. And your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.
Scroll further: there are two charts, the first in "real" dollars, the second in inflation adjusted dollars.Dissident Dan said:That link does not adjust for inflation.
My views have no effect on the situation. I am unable to find help. There is a labor shortage. Is this somehow difficult for you to understand? What is it that you don't get? Are the numbers confusing to you? Do you know what a labor shortage is? Do you have some agenda that is clouding your perception of the facts? Do you know what supply and demand means? I can't imagine why you are having such difficulty with this. Is there something that I can do to help you understand better?selfAdjoint said:...your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.
russ_watters said:Scroll further: there are two charts, the first in "real" dollars, the second in inflation adjusted dollars.
Yes, there was a recession at about that time, a corresponding rise in unemployment and therefore a corresponding drop in income levels. Generally, every recession has such a drop (or at least a leveling off).Dissident Dan said:Oops. Thanks for the correction. It shows a downturn from 2000-2001. Of course, I can't say what the causes are.