🚀 go-pugleaf

>> >"Jim Blair" <jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
>> >
>> > So manufacturing employment is dropping but industrial production is
>> > rising?  Note that productivity is also rising (and unemployment
>> > dropping).
>> >
>> > It is taking ever fewer people to make ever more goods?  That is GOOD.
>>
>>
>> >"Grinch" <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Once upon a time 75% of total employment in the US was in agriculture.
>> >> It's dropped to 2% today -- although farms produce vastly more today,
>> >> due to much higher productivity, of course.
>> >>
>> >> Look at the 73% unemployment in the US now!  Look at how US wealth now
>> >> is concentrated among those 2% of agricultural barrons -- how they get
>> >> all the money!
>>
>> "Mark Martin" <mpmartin7@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
>
>Oh, I got the point alright.  You're saying that because we're not all
>farmers, and that goods are made in highly automated factories, that we're
>all better off.  

Hi,

Yes. At least the vast majority of us.  And the "average" and "median" of 
us.


>....This point that you're trying to make is pointless and
>completely moot.  

Some people don't seem to understand it.


>....The agricultural economy died out in the 19th century, or
>early 20th, with the advent of the industrial revolution.  Who cares about
>that?  That was when my grandpa was a kid.  

And the agricultural economy came on the scene some 10,000 year ago 
displacing many hunters and gatherers.  History repeats itself.

>...Now, the industrial economy is
>supposedly dying out, giving way to either a services oriented economy, or
>an information age, or what they called "New Economy" a year or two ago.



>...  I
>think this is the point that you're referring to, but you make no mention of
>this part of the equation at all.  Instead, you're saying that since we're
>not all farmers or factory workers, we're all better off.  The phasing out
>of old economies cannot accout for greater employment.  Less people working
>[at manufacturing] does not mean more people are employed. 


Lets keep "facts" (data) and theory/speculation separate. One fact is that 
less people are now employed in manufacturing. See thread title. 
Another fact is that the number of people AND the percent of the 
population employed has also been increasing since 1962.

You seem to be saying that these two facts cannot co-exist.  But they do.

>... You gotta talk
>about what replaces the economy that's being phased out, and that's what
>your argument is missing.

Look around you. What do the people you know do for a living?  How many 
work in a factory?  How many are farmers?

>
>Now, about this "new economy", or whatever.  The supposed "information age"
>is a flop right now.  The dot-com bubble burst last year, and has no chance
>of recovering any time soon.  

While the stock market dropped, the "economy" has been hanging on. What is 
the unemployment rate today?  What was it 20 years ago?  Or 30 years ago?
Or 40 years ago?

What were family incomes during the above listed years?

>...There are no computer jobs of any kind, no
>high-tech jobs anywhere.  

Really?  I read of shortages of skill jobs: nurses, science teachers, 
medical  technologists, etc, 


>....Lots of companies have already layed off large
>portions of their workforce, or gone out of business:  Montgomery Ward,
>K-Mart... there was a website that listed hundreds of companies that were
>laying off thousands, dozens of thousands of employees at a time.  

Yes. Isn't it strange that the unemployment rate is still below historic 
norms?


>....Now, here
>you are saying that all this unemployment means a "higher standard of
>living,"  while you fail to acknowledge all these facts that the current
>state of the economy is a complete shambles.  

No. I am saying that living standards in the US are at the historic high, 
and that the employment rate is near its historic high, and that the 
unemployment rate is below its historic normal.


>....Pardon me if I feel insulted.


Just look at the facts.  And if you don't believe them, explain why the 
facts are wrong.

>Granted, I can get a hamburger at Wendy's without having to chase the animal
>around the barnyard or go foraging for the vegetables.  And CDs are better
>quality than 8-tracks.  And I can get help right away from McAfee over the
>web for my virus scanner software.  But you'll never convince me that less
>people working means more people are employed.  That's pretty much what you
>said:

Er, that is MORE people now working (not LESS) as compared to the 1960's.

jeb:
>
>> ??? As ever fewer people have been able to make ever more (and better)
>> goods because of higher productivity, the fraction of the population
>> employed has increased, and family incomes have increased to their highest
>> levels ever.

Yes. And that claim is correct.


                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time 
call:   http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834