Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Men Not Working

Re: Men Not Working

Martin — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:34:44 -0000

Not at all.

But I do so love baiting globalists.

Re: Men Not Working

JohnDewey — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:38:21 -0000

Martin: "Shouting 'comparative advantage!' three times while waving the Mises stick in your opponent's face doesn't really cut it in the offshoring debate anymore."

Well, I neither shouted nor waved a stick. And I certainly don't consider you an "opponent".

Martin: "because some numbskull economists started to misinterpret comparative advantage"

Is it really necessary to use the term "numbskull"? I think that would make people less likely to continue responding to your posts. But perhaps that's what you wanted.

Re: Men Not Working

Martin — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:34:13 -0000

John

Sure I'm aware of comparative advantage. I'm also aware of the writings of (gasp!) Paul Craig Roberts (gasp!) who makes a (gasp!) very cogent case that the offshoring process is not 'comparative advantage' in any Ricardian sense but the creation of absolute corporate advantage.

Shouting 'comparative advantage!' three times while waving the Mises stick in your opponent's face doesn't really cut it in the offshoring debate anymore.

Automation's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? It seems that there is absolutely no difficulty in automating an extremely complicated process like building a car, yet more and more people just HAVE to be imported to do nothing more complicated than pick fruit from the trees.

Ah, but we are now talking creative destruction! Woo-Hoo! I am not aware of specifics, but for these purposes I will take your observation that more jobs have been lost to automation than outsourcing at face value. When the jobs were automated, the guys who lost their jobs found other ones. Then they got outsourced, in many cases not because they were unprofitable or unproductive (Lazy American humans! Go you Korean robots!), but because some numbskull economists started to misinterpret comparative advantage and when that happened all the executives could see were $$$$$$$$$$.

By the way, is your job-loss-through-automation- argument specifically based on such losses in the offshoring era (2000 onwards, the same as the 'stagnating wages' period), or over a longer period?

How ironic that you mention 'high discretionary income' on the day that slower job growth is reported. According to those other economists I read, such as Stephen Roach, the consumer boom has been fuelled by cheap money and factors such as the home equity extraction industry, leaving a gap in domestic savings which has had to be plugged by the import of so-called 'cheap' goods. The principal reason for the gap is (cue Kermit the Frog) - stagnating wages!

And if cheap money ends then your high discretionary income fantasy will come to an end with it!

We'll have more important things to worry about than paying our ISP bills!

And where will 'Cafe Hayek' be then?

By the way, I'm the civilised present guy, not the savage past guy.

Re: Men Not Working

John Dewey — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:52:37 -0000

Martin: "Selling itself lock stock and barrel = offshoring."

Are you familiar with the concept of comparative advantage? Are you also aware that more blue collar jobs have been eliminated through automation than through offshoring?

Martin:"And how do you define 'well-paying'?"

A well-paying job is one that allows a household to enjoy large amounts of discretionary income. That would be income for vacations, big screen televisions, eating out at restaurants, new vehicles, new clothes, and all the other goods that Americans consume. By my defnition, at least 80% of American workers have well-paying jobs. Most of the remaining 20% will eventually have well-paying jobs.

Martin, how do you define "well-paying job"?

When you say that wages are stagnant, what period are you referring to? My post was triggered by your reference to the "savage past", which you still have yet to clarify.

Re: Men Not Working

Martin — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:43:59 -0000

John,

Selling itself lock stock and barrel = offshoring.

The standard of living argument doesn't wash. Having stuff doesn't mean much when wage growth is stagnant and it requires to be purchased on credit. That is not real wealth.

And how do you define 'well-paying'?

Re: Men Not Working

John Dewey — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:03:47 -0000

Martin, you have genuinely confused me.

First you said:

"We might have fewer diseases as a result of economic progress, but the savage past had two good things going for it. Firstly, the work was relatively secure. Secondly, the money had value."

Naturally I assumed you were referring to the early 20th century, before all the medical advances and economic progress of the past 60 years, and presumably before we left the gold standard. But when I responded to that post, you shifted gears and started talking about the tiny period since the year 2000.

Here's my response to your questions:

"BTW, didn't the steel plants come back?

Didn't the Depression end?"

Well, certainly. But only after years of high unemployment. Your claim was that "work was relatively secure". Waiting years for a job to return cannot be described as even a "relatively secure" situation.

The truth as I see it is that work - meaning well-paying jobs - are more available now (the past 25 years) than at any other time in our nation's history. Our standard of living for everyone, not just the wealthy, is much higher than any time in history. Our health is obviously much better than any time in history.

Quite frankly, I don't see how any period before "economic progress" - any period in whatever "savage past" you refer to - could be better for us than what we're living in right now.

Re: Men Not Working

John Dewey — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:48:15 -0000

martin: "doesn't the fall of the unemployment rate at its end indicate that an economy doesn't really need to sell itself lock, stock and barrel in order to create jobs?"

What does this mean? How does an economy sell itself? Sorry, but I really don't understand what you're talking about.

Re: Men Not Working

Martin — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:05:01 -0000

And that, of course, should read 'the wages of the low skilled'...

Re: Men Not Working

Martin — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:04:00 -0000

John,

No, not at all - just as the great labour arbitrage of 2000 to date (Roach) and mass migration's effect on the skills of the low waged (Borjas) can hardly be called triumphs of the civilised present.

BTW, didn't the steel plants come back?

Bigger and better than ever?

Didn't the Depression end?

And doesn't the fall of the unemployment rate at its end indicate that an economy doesn't really need to sell itself lock, stock and barrel in order to create jobs?

Just thinking out loud...

Re: Men Not Working

John Dewey — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:07:19 -0000

martin: "the work was relatively secure"

When hundreds of steel mills and railroads failed in the Panic 0f 1893, how secure were all those workers? What about the 1920-1921 Depression when prices dropped 40% and unemployment quickly rose from 2% to 11%? Any idea what the unemployment rate was in 1933?

Are these the good things from the savage past that you're referring to?

Re: Men Not Working

Martin — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:09:50 -0000

Yetter,

We might have fewer diseases as a result of economic progress (although I have never yet been able to find out how much Alexander Fleming made from penicillin nor, indeed, my compatriot Adam Smith from 'The Wealth of Nations'), but the savage past had two good things going for it.

Firstly, the work was relatively secure.

Secondly, the money had value.

Re: Men Not Working

Patrick R. Sullivan — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:28:46 -0000

The major problem with the Times article is that's it's anecdotal, and hence misleading. The real decline in labor force participation is for young people. Teens and early 20s.

Men aged 35-54 had about the same LFP rate in 1996 as in 2005--i.e at the same point in the business cycle; 4 years after the previous peak.

And men over 55 had a 13% higher LFP rate in 2005.

Re: Men Not Working

liberty — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:30:48 -0000

joe,

funny but that was exactly what they tried in the USSR ...

Re: Men Not Working

joe — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:52:48 -0000

Americans With No Abilities Act

WASHINGTON , DC

Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans.

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some idea of what they are doing."

The President pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability.

Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%) ,and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%) The DMV also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.

The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?"

"As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Ted Kennedy, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation."

Re: Men Not Working

Noah Yetter — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:41:11 -0000

"Yes, bring back the buggy whip makers. Those days weren't so bad after all."

Yes, actually, they were bad. They were terrible, in fact. The era of the buggy whips was one of desperate poverty and disease compared to the present. It is purely through economic progress - the very kind that destroyed the buggy whip industry - that we have gained the wealth and prosperity we enjoy today.

I have no sympathy or compassion for those who romanticize the savage past and wish a return to it. Those who believe the myth of "the good old days" are fools.

Shame on you for your dangerous ignorance.

Re: Men Not Working

Helen's_kid — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:44:41 -0000

I think machismo deters a lot of men from seeking a 9 to 5. Chances are he'll be supervised by a woman. No Thanks.

Another thing, no permanent goal associated with employment. There was a time when you could expect a pension. Expect to be promised a pension, then expect to be cheated out of it. No Thanks.

Consider one more discouragement. You will sweat yourself to death enriching the executives. No Thanks.

To quote one such disaffected individual I knew, "I would rather carve myself a wooden beak and peck shit with the chickens." His disability claim eventually came through.

Re: Men Not Working

JohnDewey — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:20:24 -0000

Bruce Hall,

The only part of your post that you attributed to someone else was the two sentence passage by Mark Zandi. It certainly didn't seem as pessimistic as the rest of your post, the part I disagree with.

Even when an economist offers a prediction, we shouldn't just accept it as a certainty. I'm sure that economists will admit they don't get it right all the time. The U.S. and world economies are just too large and too complex for anyone to know what is going to happen. The old joke is that economsts have predicted ten of the last three recessions. IMO, economists do a better job of explaining past recessions than of predicting future ones.

What part of your gloomy post from yesterday afternoon was your writing and what part was someone else's? Was the part about the acute "economic fragmentation of our society" really an economist's writing? Was it the New York Times or Bruce Hall who said the moderately skilled "have become expendable and marginalized"? What about the opinion that the downturn in housing will create a "critical mess"? I'm just wondering why I should believe those opinions rather than the economic facts I posted are more relevant in an assessment of the economy. That's all I asked.

Re: Men Not Working

Martin — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:47:33 -0000

Yetter,

Your point about the buggy whip makers, if meant to patronise, was actually quite profound.

When the cars came, two things would have happened to the buggy whip makers. Most would have got jobs at the auto plant. The rest would have developed into niche manufacturers, probably with grants because of their contribution to 'local heritage'.

The sons of the buggy whip makers would have become foremen, the grandsons doctors and the great-grandsons software engineers...

Then someone discovered the H1-B and the so-called 'skills shortage'...and Cafe Hayek...

Yes, bring back the buggy whip makers. Those days weren't so bad after all.

Re: Men Not Working

liberty — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:08:50 -0000

If indeed part of the reason that these men are retiring early is because "decently paying blue-collar jobs are disappearing," one has to wonder which came first: many job disappearing or many men retiring early - and going on welfare.

Suppose a trend begins in the prosperous early eighties for some wealthy men to retire early and enjoy leisure time; then some blue collar workers realize that they can claim disability and do the same; then as welfare rolls grow this hurts the job market and causes the loss of some number of "decently paying blue collar jobs," this causes more men to choose to retire early rather than take a job which is below them; and the cycle continues.

Re: Men Not Working

metis314 — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:55:41 -0000

Half Sigma:

"That demonstrates a double standard. If a man works but his wife doesn't, that's the American Way and Traditional Values. But god forbid a woman works and her husband doesn't, the the poor guy is condemned as a big loser who's not living up to his manly responsibilities."

John Dewey implied no such thing in his statement. He merely noted (correctly) that it is not suprising that the percent of men in this category has increased since 1960 given the fact that the percent of women (say in this age group) working has increased by even more and it is possible to live on a single income.

Save the Rustbelt:

"(Ohio lost jobs again last month, but the unemployment rate continues to decline. If you can't move the numerator, fudge the denominator)."

Note that the total (seasonally adjusted) nonfarm employment of the US has increased (since July-Aug 2003):

March -- April --- May --- June

134905 135017 35109(p) 135230(p)

(BLS Establishment data)

So it is not only due to changing the denominator as you suggest.

Re: Men Not Working

tarran — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:40:08 -0000

You know, I used to work in a dying industry. I had one employer go into chapter 7 in 2001.

I moved to another state, got a job making half as much as I was at the mill, and worked my way up to making almost as much as I did back then.

If you can't find work, and you are able-bodied and can think reasonably well, then you aren't looking hard enough.

Re: Men Not Working

save the rustbelt — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:49:54 -0000

Many of these men cannot get jobs, because they are 1) over 40, and more importantly 2) have a history of union membership, which is the kiss of death for most jobs.

If the labor market were as robust as the Bushites claim, this would not be an issue. The unemployment rate is as phony as a three dollar bill.

(Ohio lost jobs again last month, but the unemployment rate continues to decline. If you can't move the numerator, fudge the denominator).

Re: Men Not Working

loikll — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:54:41 -0000

These guys aren't "discouraged workers" and they shouldn't be counted among the "unemployed". Clearly they've simply retired early, but don't want to admit it. Nice deal if you can get away with it I suppose.

Re: Men Not Working

Aaron Krowne — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:43:11 -0000

I predict this population of non-working young men will drastically shrink, if not vanish, in the next two years, as the home equity withdrawal option goes away.

Now, I wonder if more will grudgingly enter the labor force (or whats left of it) than will simply end up unemployed and disaffected.

Re: Men Not Working

Half Sigma — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:13:18 -0000

John Dewey: "My guess is that the percentage of women in that age group who are working has increased by far more. Despite all you hear to the contrary, it is possible for couples to survive on one income."

That demonstrates a double standard. If a man works but his wife doesn't, that's the American Way and Traditional Values. But god forbid a woman works and her husband doesn't, the the poor guy is condemned as a big loser who's not living up to his manly responsibilities.