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 revolves around the implications of automation and technological advancement on employment, economic structures, and social classes. Participants explore the potential for job displacement, the evolution of labor markets, and the societal consequences of these changes, including wealth distribution and the role of welfare or socialistic systems in supporting displaced workers.
Participants generally disagree on the extent and implications of job losses due to automation, with some asserting that the economy will adapt while others foresee significant challenges. There is no consensus on the best approach to address these issues, including the role of welfare or socialistic systems.
Participants express varying assumptions about the future of work and the economy, including the impact of automation on job availability and the effectiveness of proposed support systems for displaced workers. The discussion reflects differing interpretations of economic data and the potential for societal change.
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.