Why don’t all jobs matter in politics?

[runyouover]

Obviously you have never been to Venezuela. Our very worst is ten times their best.

Venezuela is a prime example of left wing socialism at its best

Venezuela has pretty much a dictator who does whatever he wants and cant be stopped. Has nothing to do with our form of government or lefties in our country, dumb ass.

I'm a Venezuelan and I live in Venezuela. You should disregard any opinion from anyone that does not live here. In Venezuela, what Nicolas Maduro (the president) dictates, gets done, period. There are no checks and balances; there is no division of power. There is no organ of the state that will tell him "No, you can't; it's against the constitution." The PSUV government party controls all organs of the state including the Supreme Court and the Electoral Council, yes, the vote counters. What makes a person a dictator is not how he got there initially, but how he wields power and how he treats every new election once he is a ruler. There will be people that will say that Chavez and his anointed successor Nicolas Maduro were voted in, but so was Hitler. Most African dictators initially won an election, but once they were in power made sure to "win" all others, even if this includes banning the opposition, killing opposition leaders, or throwing them in jail for some made-up crime "against the state," which is what they do in Venezuela (google "Leopoldo Lopez," "Antonio Ledezma, etc). Any ruler which is all-powerful, that controls all instances of power besides the executive branch, especially the judicial and electoral, and that keeps the military happy by all means (including corruption), is a dictator. He dictates, and it gets done, by any means, and citizens are defenseless

 

[wcfanfourever]

Fist and Scout need not replay you're still and will forever be on ignore. Save your breath for your blow up dolls. At least Fist's is a Barbie, scout, as suspected went for the Ken doll.

By PAUL KRUGMAN

President Donald Trump is still promising to bring back coal jobs. But the underlying reasons for coal employment’s decline — automation, falling electricity demand, cheap natural gas, technological progress in wind and solar — won’t go away.

Meanwhile, last week the Treasury Department officially (and correctly) declined to name China as a currency manipulator, making nonsense of everything Trump has said about reviving manufacturing.

So will the Trump administration do anything substantive to bring back mining and manufacturing jobs? Probably not.

But let me ask a different question: Why does public discussion of job loss focus so intensely on mining and manufacturing, while virtually ignoring the big declines in some service sectors?

Consider what has happened to department stores. Even as Trump was boasting about saving a few hundred jobs in manufacturing here and there, Macy’s announced plans to close 68 stores and lay off 10,000 workers. Sears, another iconic institution, has expressed “substantial doubt” about its ability to stay in business.

Overall, department stores employ a third fewer people now than they did in 2001. That’s half a million traditional jobs gone — about 18 times as many jobs as were lost in coal mining over the same period.

And retailing isn’t the only service industry that has been hit hard by changing technology. Another prime example is newspaper publishing, where employment has declined by 270,000, almost two-thirds of the workforce, since 2000.

So why aren’t promises to save service jobs as much a staple of political posturing as promises to save mining and manufacturing jobs?

One answer might be that mines and factories sometimes act as anchors of local economies, so their closing can devastate a community in a way shutting a retail outlet won’t.

But it’s not the whole truth. Closing a factory is just one way to undermine a local community. Competition from superstores and shopping malls also devastated many small-city downtowns; now many small-town malls are failing too. And we shouldn’t minimize the extent to which the long decline of small newspapers has eroded the sense of local identity.

A different, less creditable reason mining and manufacturing have become political footballs, while services haven’t, involves the need for villains. Demagogues can tell coal miners that liberals took away their jobs with environmental regulations. They can tell industrial workers that their jobs were taken away by nasty foreigners. And they can promise to bring the jobs back by making America polluted again, by getting tough on trade, and so on. These are false promises, but they play well with some audiences.

By contrast, it’s really hard to blame either liberals or foreigners for, say, the decline of Sears.

But, you ask, what can we do to stop service-sector job cuts? Not much — but that’s also true for mining and manufacturing, as working-class Trump voters will soon learn. In an ever-changing economy, jobs are always being lost: 75,000 Americans are fired or laid off every working day. And sometimes whole sectors go away as tastes or technology changes.

While we can’t stop job losses from happening, however, we can limit the human damage when they do happen. We can guarantee health care and adequate retirement income for all. We can provide aid to the newly unemployed. And we can act to keep the overall economy strong — which means doing things like investing in infrastructure and education, not cutting taxes on rich people and hoping the benefits trickle down.

I don’t want to sound unsympathetic to miners and industrial workers. Yes, their jobs matter. But all jobs matter. And while we can’t ensure that any particular job endures, we can and should ensure that a decent life endures even when a job doesn’t.


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/o...olumnists/article145241764.html#storylink=cpy

We dont have blacksmiths today putting shoes on horses, we haave mechanics working on automobiles

There is a big difference between the normal evolution of jobs, and jobs being outsourced to countries who dont make companies pay a living wage to their workers

 

[WCS Coach]

Yeah like the middle east

Middle east, Vietnam, Korea....we have a long track record

 

[Neutron Monster]

We dont have blacksmiths today putting shoes on horses, we haave mechanics working on automobiles

There is a big difference between the normal evolution of jobs, and jobs being outsourced to countries who dont make companies pay a living wage to their workers

The average person who has lost a job in a factory or coal mine lost it to a robot, not to China

 

[Scout 4u]

The average person who has lost a job in a factory or coal mine lost it to a robot, not to China

"Factory" is an over used word by the media.

US "Distribution" is a totally different World. It has been hit in the face for years by China, Vietnam, Mexico, Taiwan, Russia, Europe etc...

Lower the tax burden on companies here and those businesses can "afford" to make things in the US rather than shipping them across an ocean.

 

[Neutron Monster]

The tax burden on manufacturing is not that high, they have loads of special deals already. They are not one of the major winners from corporate tax reform.

 

[FistOH]

I'm a stock market investor, so I am entirely willing to give the tax cut to 15% that Trump is proposing for C-corps, S-corps, LLC's, and MLP's a fair hearing! And what's not to like about allowing companies to expense their capital investments?
I suspect that the 15% that Trump proposes will be watered down by Congress to 20% or 25% when it is all said and done. Still, that is an incentive for small business people to take risks funding their S-corps and LLC's. Entrepreneurs will be more inclined to risk taking out a second mortgage on their home to fund a business if the after-tax return is 25% than if it is 39%.

 

[Scout 4u]

The tax burden on manufacturing is not that high, they have loads of special deals already. They are not one of the major winners from corporate tax reform.

The company I've worked at for 35 years imports its products from overseas.

Over 15 countries...
95% China made, make those products.

The only two things keeping those products from being made here are profit and shame.

Lower the cost to make those products here with a 30% to 45% tax incentive overall and the profit margin is made up.

Go on National Television and expose this Corporation as a buy "China First Fraud" and the American public will do the rest.

And no this is not a mom and pops shop.

In their field their number one in the World with no second place trophies to be handed out.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I'm a stock market investor, so I am entirely willing to give the tax cut to 15% that Trump is proposing for C-corps, S-corps, LLC's, and MLP's a fair hearing! And what's not to like about allowing companies to expense their capital investments?
I suspect that the 15% that Trump proposes will be watered down by Congress to 20% or 25% when it is all said and done. Still, that is an incentive for small business people to take risks funding their S-corps and LLC's. Entrepreneurs will be more inclined to risk taking out a second mortgage on their home to fund a business if the after-tax return is 25% than if it is 39%.

It's a bad incentive overall, S Corps should not have a different tax rate from wage income. It is not in the interest of the economy or the average person to incentivize people to move wage income into these structures. It's just a giant tax shelter. We have mountains of evidence from state level trials of this policy - see Kansas. It's just a tax giveaway. It's not a serious way to promote economic growth.

Companies can already expense their capital investments. The question is how fast can they do so. Amortizing makes more sense than accelerating deductions to immediate from an economic theory standpoint - the revenue associated with the capital investment is accrued over time into the calculation of income taxes. Further, this is the sort of tax gimmick that has to be weakened in order to fund a lower overall corporate tax rate in a revenue neutral manner.

The bill is not out and we should evaluate what we see, but these sorts of provisions heavily suggest that the thing is basically a giant giveaway to business, not substantive reform that improves the overall quality of the US tax code by making it more efficient and less complicated.

Congress and the White House continue to propose fantasy land policies where you can have all the good things you want without making the tough choices that address the negative consequences of those actions, such as the budget deficit or making reform choices that create losers.

 

[bullitpdq68]

The average person who has lost a job in a factory or coal mine lost it to a robot, not to China

I am interested in this, can you provide something that points to a study that say automation in American has amounted to job lose? And what do you determine is an average American? I know for a fact the average job lost here in SWMO was not to automation, they did not move robots into the local factories to replace humans they closed them down and moved them to Mexico.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I am interested in this, can you provide something that points to a study that say automation in American has amounted to job lose? And what do you determine is an average American? I know for a fact the average job lost here in SWMO was not to automation, they did not move robots into the local factories to replace humans they closed them down and moved them to Mexico.

People notice moves to other countries because those are abrupt events. Often, technological improvement is a steady change, not a wave. You're not seeing the gradual change in employment/output at those plants over time. People don't generally lose jobs to robots in one big wave. It happens over time.

At a high level, the simplest piece of evidence is a quick comparison of US manufacturing employment vs US manufacturing output. We make a lot more stuff (on an inflation adjusted basis) with the same amount of people. It takes many fewer man hours to make a car than it once did. And our manufacturing base has trended towards higher value products because it's a lot easier to pay $40,000+ a year to someone who makes a Boeing plan than to someone who makes t shirts.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/265c...o-taking-us-factory-jobs-blame-robots-instead

https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e6-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi399f9ycLTAhULsVQKHclZBqEQFgg6MAQ&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html&usg=AFQjCNGIM3w4qLm5zv3zReZRiZW_1k3Z1g&sig2=8iZfl4rrmLLJfF7UOLAskQ

That's not to say trade had no impact, and results certainly vary by job/industry, but basically every rigorous empirical study suggests the biggest driver of the decline in manufacturing employment (both in raw headcount # and as a % of employment) is due to technology.

 

[FistOH]

It's a bad incentive overall, S Corps should not have a different tax rate from wage income. It is not in the interest of the economy or the average person to incentivize people to move wage income into these structures. It's just a giant tax shelter. We have mountains of evidence from state level trials of this policy - see Kansas. It's just a tax giveaway. It's not a serious way to promote economic growth.

Companies can already expense their capital investments. The question is how fast can they do so. Amortizing makes more sense than accelerating deductions to immediate from an economic theory standpoint. Further, this is the sort of tax gimmick that has to be weakened in order to fund a lower overall corporate tax rate in a revenue neutral manner.

The bill is not out and we should evaluate what we see, but these sorts of provisions heavily suggest that the thing is basically a giant giveaway to business, not substantive reform that improves the overall quality of the US tax code by making it more efficient and less complicated.

Congress and the White House continue to propose fantasy land policies where you can have all the good things you want without making the tough choices that address the negative consequences of those actions, such as the budget deficit or making reform choices that create losers.

Yep. My accountant advised paying 70% of the pass-through as wages subject to FICA/MC and 30% as distributions, not subject to FICA/MC. Remember that an S-corp or LLC usually requires start up capital, so the distributions are a return on investment, the same as dividends from a C-corp.
It is possible to be a passive owner of an S-corp or LLC where you put up the money, but don't take an active part in running the business. It's not fair to tax the distributions as if they were wages

 

[Neutron Monster]

It shows up pretty clear in coal as well, which is why I mention that. Output hasn't changed much in the last 25 years, but coal mining employment is down by 50%.

 

[bullitpdq68]

It shows up pretty clear in coal as well, which is why I mention that. Output hasn't changed much in the last 25 years, but coal mining employment is down by 50%.

Springfield has changed one of the power plants over to natural gas because of cost, I know several others have too, Natural gas is cheap. I think that has been the biggest loss for coal.

 

[bullitpdq68]

People notice moves to other countries because those are abrupt events. Often, technological improvement is a steady change, not a wave. You're not seeing the gradual change in employment/output at those plants over time. People don't generally lose jobs to robots in one big wave. It happens over time.

At a high level, the simplest piece of evidence is a quick comparison of US manufacturing employment vs US manufacturing output. We make a lot more stuff (on an inflation adjusted basis) with the same amount of people. It takes many fewer man hours to make a car than it once did. And our manufacturing base has trended towards higher value products because it's a lot easier to pay $40,000+ a year to someone who makes a Boeing plan than to someone who makes t shirts.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/265c...o-taking-us-factory-jobs-blame-robots-instead

https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e6-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi399f9ycLTAhULsVQKHclZBqEQFgg6MAQ&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html&usg=AFQjCNGIM3w4qLm5zv3zReZRiZW_1k3Z1g&sig2=8iZfl4rrmLLJfF7UOLAskQ

That's not to say trade had no impact, and results certainly vary by job/industry, but basically every rigorous empirical study suggests the biggest driver of the decline in manufacturing employment (both in raw headcount # and as a % of employment) is due to technology.

Most of what you provided was taking aim at Trump and his bring jobs back all written AT. So I dug a little deeper and here is the truth. This was written BT 2015. Reshoring yes that is right REshoring of jobs along with automation is projected to help bring jobs back, but first we have to bring back manufacturing that we have lost due to cheap labor. Says nothing about Average Americans, says low skill.

Replacing employees with robots is projected to result in a manufacturing workforce that's 22% — or a few million workers — smaller by 2025 than it otherwise would have been. But factory payrolls are still expected to rise because of an expanding economy and the growing tendency of manufacturers to move some production back to the U.S. from overseas — a trend known as reshoring, Sirkin says.

Indeed, the spread of robotics itself should make the U.S. more productive than many other countries, creating more jobs. BCG estimates reshoring will add 700,000 to 1.3 million factory jobs in the U.S. by 2020. Many low-skills jobs, however, will be eliminated while higher-skill positions, such as operating and maintaining robots, are expected to grow.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Springfield has changed one of the power plants over to natural gas because of cost, I know several others have too, Natural gas is cheap. I think that has been the biggest loss for coal.

It is going forward and has been so for the last 10-15 years, yeah. Fracking is a bigger enemy of coal than environmental regs. Before that it was much more about technology - the US used to have nearly a million coal miners at a time when output was nowhere near what it is today.

The other change has been a shift in preferences towards cleaner coal - using the stuff from Wyoming instead of from Southern Illinois.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Most of what you provided was taking aim at Trump and his bring jobs back all written AT. So I dug a little deeper and here is the truth. This was written BT 2015. Reshoring yes that is right REshoring of jobs along with automation is projected to help bring jobs back, but first we have to bring back manufacturing that we have lost due to cheap labor. Says nothing about Average Americans, says low skill.

Replacing employees with robots is projected to result in a manufacturing workforce that's 22% — or a few million workers — smaller by 2025 than it otherwise would have been. But factory payrolls are still expected to rise because of an expanding economy and the growing tendency of manufacturers to move some production back to the U.S. from overseas — a trend known as reshoring, Sirkin says.

Indeed, the spread of robotics itself should make the U.S. more productive than many other countries, creating more jobs. BCG estimates reshoring will add 700,000 to 1.3 million factory jobs in the U.S. by 2020. Many low-skills jobs, however, will be eliminated while higher-skill positions, such as operating and maintaining robots, are expected to grow.

No question, robots need people to maintain them, but the economics still have to work:

Cost of robot + maintenance has to be less than the cost of having people do the work.

And robots replace plenty more than just reshored jobs. Yes, in a vacuum, they will replace some foreign labor with domestic labor, but they will replace domestic labor in many other places.

In a world where the US economy will, on average, grow at a slow pace and the overall working age population will barely grow due to demographic change, the idea that we are going to be creating a lot of manufacturing jobs seems like hope more than anything.

Robotic cars and trucks are a great example of potential for huge disruption. There are multiple million truckers/drivers in this country.

 

[FistOH]

The tax plan is a gimmick or soft because we've moved the majority of our factories to Mexico and China. That's where the money is being spent. We can't spend money on factories that aren't here anymore. By some counts, 70,000 are no longer here, so that's 70,000 fewer opportunities to invest in America.
This productivity growth "at half the average of the 1980s/1990s" is telling too. The "robots stole your job" people want everybody to think that robots have taken all Americans' jobs when we know that it is human beings in Mexico and China who got the work.