Posted on 07/11/2016 4:07:16 AM PDT by expat_panama
...Obama’s critics on rates of labor-force participation to some degree makes the case for the Obama economy performing better than is widely believed...
... The argument is that assuming rates of participation that prevailed 5, 10 and 15 years ago, the jobless rate would be higher. This statistic is being used to indict the Obama economy, and will similarly be used by Democrats to eviscerate the economy when a Republican is in the White House. Partisans on both sides will miss the point.
Up front, this column is not a defense of President Obama or his economy. His administration’s meddling during what would have been a healthy recession deprived the economy of its natural ability to fix itself on the way to a boom. Recessions are the cleansing cure of labor misuse, foolish investment... ...the Obama economy performing better than is widely believed...
...the Obama economy is underperforming thanks to too much government meddling. This is worth bringing up simply because it’s a safe bet that many Americans are presently hiding their work from government. If so, good. ...
...the U.S. economy could be better than it is today, and with much better job availability. Economic growth is easy, and it’s a function of reducing the tax, regulatory, trade (tariffs on foreign goods), and monetary (unstable money that slows investment) barriers to production. What’s important to remember is that if those barriers are greatly reduced, Americans will become even more productive than they already are. If so, even more will have the luxury of dropping out of the labor force altogether. That’s what people are lucky enough to do in rich countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
So, I am supposed to believe these numbers just because the government has the power to enforce dictates down the barrel of a gun?
I am not smart enough to predict what the new jobs of the future will be...but there will be new jobs. Thirty years ago, I would have never predicted that companies would have entire IT departments, or that we would have entirely new markets like cell phones.
On the list of things I worry about, loss of jobs to machines is still pretty low.
One of the milestones in AI was when a computer (Watson) was able to beat the top Jeopardy champions. That happened in 2011 and the technology has only gotten better.
IMHO, the two biggest watersheds in AI will be:
1. When computers can “see” and recognize objects (or scenes) better than humans
2. When computer can intelligently converse with humans using natural language.
#1 has more or less occurred. A few months ago I read about a Google program that could tell what city it was in just by looking at random pictures. It could do this better than people.
#2 is much tougher because, in a sustained conversation, a human can make many obscure references or allusions. Adult humans pick those up effortlessly because they have a lifetime of experience which can’t easily be programmed or represented in a database. For a machine to know a little bit about something it needs to know a lot about everything. Even so, I predict this barrier will fall too in less than 20 years. When it does, you’ll see a whole categories of jobs disappear—and it will disproportionately impact those who talk for a living (esp. Women).
In the end, the human brain is just a big statistical processor with sensors and actuators. It is kind of naive to think it can’t be replicated or improved upon.
Lastly, I think the below video does a good job of making the case for what I’m asserting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShC-sGTQDi0
Also, I will definitely be retired by the time most of this kicks in.
I can see this for the first 11-week term of unemployment compensation, perhaps. But the 99-weekers? Umm, no. GOYAAFAJ
If that graph depicted a stock price over time, most analysts would consider selling short.
“In the end, the human brain is just a big statistical processor with sensors and actuators. It is kind of naive to think it can’t be replicated or improved upon.”
Preface - That’s not at all what I said.
But, now that you bring it up, I don’t think computers will ever attain parity with the human brain. Same reason I don’t think there will ever be a truly autonomous car. We make hundreds of decisions every day, based on judgment, context, situation, etc - and we do it lightening fast. Having a database of what different cities look like is one thing...but trying to negotiate a construction zone with gesticulating flagmen giving contradictory instructions is another.
Naïve? Time will tell.
They don’t have to do it perfectly (as nothing is ever perfect), just safer than humans. Again, the technology will just get better, so in 10 years they will be much safer than humans. AI software is advancing in leaps and bounds now. Frankly, 10 years ago I never thought we’d get to where we are now in my lifetime.
If a machine or program can do something better or cheaper than a human, then it is inevitable that it will be deployed instead of a human. That is where the job losses will come from. We will increasingly strain to find things that humans can do better.
Captain Obvious sez: Significant contributing factor to the low birth rates in 1st/2nd world countries are:
-How modern technology decreases the need for Mom & Pop to have 6 or 8 surviving children to work in the family business or on the family farm.
-Family farms & businesses are disappearing anyway.
-401k plans, SS similar and foreign government pension plans obviate the need for growing big families so someone would be there to take care of you in your old age.
I think you, me and Trump think pretty much alike on economic matters.
And a hell of a lot of things affect economic matters.
“They don’t have to do it perfectly”
I don’t recall setting the bar that high. I actually said that computers would never achieve parity with the human brain.
We can all make predictions...only time will tell.
Yep. There were, probably still are, lots of lawyer billboards in Florida about how to get on taxpayer-paid disability. Ditto for food stamps...er, I mean for SNAP. Plus, there a lot of people pushing disability or some other sit-on-your-ass-program on Facebook now.
It's a free country. Nobody believes everything they hear from Washington but there are some things that I'm willing to go along w/. Like, I honestly believe that the astronauts really did go to the moon and there are some places where I won't play frisbee:
(LOL at your last line...) Yes, I've been similarly getting robbed for years. But frankly, there are many on this forum who are happy with the return in the artificially pumped up stock market and they simply don't give a damn that savers near retirement are getting robbed so the market will stay pumped...not yet anyway.
Yes...look at the chart in Post 1.
May 2016...151,030,000 employed out of 253,174,000 (59.7%).
June 2016....151,097,000 employed out fo 253,397,000 (59.6%)
The “Employment-population ratio” went down, 59.7% - 59.6%.
Add in the unemployed
151,030,000 + 7,436,000 = 158,466,000 out of 253.2M for May = 62.6% “participation rate.”
151,097,000 + 7,783,000 = 158,880,000 out of 253.4M for June = 62.7% “participation rate.”
The “participation rate” (a misleading term) is the number that went up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.