Wednesday, March 8, 2017

David F. Ruccio — Hammer time


The future is here. Automation and robots are taking millions of jobs and promise to take millions more.

Larry Summers and Brad DeLong think that's good. David Ruccio, not so much.

I agree with Summers and DeLong that in real terms technological innovation is a benefit in that it increases efficiency, effectiveness and productivity overall. The benefits in real terms are enormous.

I also agree with Ruccio that this needs to be qualified. Like the  terms of trade where imports are benefits in real terms with respect to goods, labor is disadvantaged by embedded labor that costs jobs and reduces pay. So the benefit in real terms only applies at full employment or if workers share in the gains with increased compensated leisure.

Curtailing technological innovation is Luddite and attempts to restrain material progress won't work. The actual issue is distribution of the surplus, was David Ruccio observes, and that needs to be revisited given emerging conditions that are resulting in challenges along with opportunities.

What's needed is innovation in thinking about distribution and also about work as a source of income in a market-based system in which distribution is rationed by price.

Occasional Links & Commentary
Hammer time
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame

54 comments:

Andrew Anderson said...

What's needed is innovation in thinking about distribution Tom Hickey

Ethics is a guide in regard to that - i.e. it wasn't/isn't a good idea to use what in essence is the PUBLIC'S CREDIT to dis-employ the public for private gain.

and also about work as a source of income in a market-based system in which distribution is rationed by price. Tom Hickey

Ethics is a guide there too - i.e. since the PUBLIC'S CREDIT was used to finance the current means of production then the public deserves compensation in the form of a CITIZEN's DIVIDEND - not make-work to "earn" back what was legally stolen from them.

I suggest we take social justice seriously for a change - mere pragmatism has resulted in the current mess.

Six said...

I've got a serious question, AA. Are you a real person, or an algorithm that's spits out a slightly different version of the same message when properly cued?

Andrew Anderson said...

Well Six, test me and see.

Unlike Neil Wilson I have no political ambitions not like Franko and others, do I desire to perpetuate injustice (for profit I presume) so I don't have much incentive, worldly speaking, to entertain you.

But if a mere algorithm can refute Neil Wilson, Yves Smith and sundry others then that does not say much for the positions they defend, does it?

Shorter: I've yet to make a single penny from my advocacy so what do you expect for less than free?

Andrew Anderson said...

correction: "not" should be "nor" in above comment - a cosmic ray must have flipped a bit in my host computer(s).

The Rombach Report said...

Technological advances applied to the process of production has always created more jobs than they have destroyed. The rise of the automotive industry put an end to black smiths and horse & buggys. Point is that someone has to invent, design, produce, and maintain the machines that emerge from new technological advances.

Andrew Anderson said...

The 1920's produced all sorts of technological advances that, after 1929, the population could not afford to buy. Go figure.

Matt Franko said...

AA just buy bank stocks and collect your citizens dividend...

The Rombach Report said...

AA - Adam Smith and Karl Marx would agree that all human progress is predicated on the accumulation of capital. Real capital that is, in the sense of progressively more advanced plant, machinery, equipment, and the skilled labor power to along with it. How the wealth is distributed is a matter of politics. After 1929 the population in aggregate could not afford to buy the technological advances of the 1920s because the claims of paper capital had outpaced the productive capacity of real physical capital to make good on that paper capital.

Penguin pop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Penguin pop said...

AA, what's your beef with Matt Franko about? Just asking.

jrbarch said...

For me, the issue is and always has been: - ‘what is a human being’?

Like children, building sand castles on the beach, we build our little societies and their environments. Then in the still of the night, when no one is looking, the tide comes in and takes them all away. One day, even the moon and the stars and the sun will be no more. What do you ‘feel’ about the chance to be alive, to exist? Is that important to you, too? Without it, you wouldn’t even be able to moan and bitch and complain.

For 200,000 years we have been evolving, on an unique little planet that we barely appreciate. Nor do we appreciate the direction of our evolution. That Energy that drives it and everything else in the entire universe has its own plan for us – like children, we laugh and play and fight on its shores, oblivious to who we are.

All evolution, drives form towards an awareness of the Self in my humble opinion; to the ‘peace and clarity’ within – and there have been ‘consciousnesses’ on this earth, far greater than you and I, that have said exactly that. There are actually over a million people on the face of this earth who know this peace within; they know what a sturdy and certain platform it is, and they know the potential impact, self-knowledge can have on the outside and sand castle building. It can turn a modern man back into a human being again! Someone with a heart, who can feel the joy of being alive and see the same beauty in others.

“Little things in life can bring huge appreciation”.

jrbarch said...

What are the most important things to a human being?

Peace
Gratitude
Love
Self-knowledge


[Desmond Tutu & Prem Rawat]

Magpie said...

Andrew Anderson said...

Well Six, test me and see.

Unlike Neil Wilson I have no political ambitions


Go ahead. Tell us the goss!

Noah Way said...

What are the most important things to a human being?

Compassion

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt Franko said...

"Tell us the goss!"

Ok I'm going to need a translation from Australian here...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goss

goss
A word short for gossip, used only by those who participater in the creation or spreading of gossip

ok got it....

Matt Franko said...

Peng,

I often break AA's balls for going too often to the old testament laws for his guidance here wrt economic aspects of the old Levite/Mosaic Law .... probably shouldnt do it... but I think that so to speak 'covenant Christians' or Evangelicals or Dominionist type OT dogmas are often damaging to the appearance of New Testament Christianity... this is where the whole anti-gay thing comes from e.g. tho AA has not been one of these anti-gay people to his credit... but he is taking his economic lead from other OT laws...

Its really bad right now you can see the whole gender bending thing getting outed these days and the dogmatic church has basically nothing to say except "you're going to hell!" to these people who are trying to deal with these issues of sexuality, etc...

to me its the biggest social issue out there here in the US these days its like a 600 lb gorilla and Christendumb has virtually nothing to say about it due to the Hell Doctrine, dogmas, etc ... pretty sad... pisses me off, etc..

Penguin pop said...

"Its really bad right now you can see the whole gender bending thing getting outed these days and the dogmatic church has basically nothing to say except "you're going to hell!" to these people who are trying to deal with these issues of sexuality, etc..."

It's an issue that's been talked about more and more on the left too. There's a part of the left now speaking out against transgender people being able to go into a bathroom of the opposite biological sex and all this stuff, particularly some radical feminist types and self-proclaimed "alt-left" people.

Then there's all this constant talk about SJWs I constantly see elsewhere being brought up by both left and right and anti-feminist vs. feminist stuff everywhere on YouTube too. That one issue alone with the gender bending is bringing out so much infighting and confusion too. I don't even know what's going on now, but that argument is basically letting these people into the bathroom would undermine Title IX sex-based protections and lead to male violence to women and young girls, etc. and the other side is saying those people are bigoted and transphobic.

I've seen some of Lord Keynes's blog posts where he mentions a few people who have talked about this a bit. It all seems like a mess right now, and with what you're saying about the church being way behind the times on this too and having no real answers or anything of substance to add to these debates besides outright condemnation Steven Anderson style. Doesn't help how politicians in general are still clueless and stupid about our current financial systems and actually figuring out the best ways to deal with the gender bending stuff and tackling sexuality.

Magpie said...

Penguin pop said...

I don't even know what's going on now, but that argument is basically letting these people into the bathroom would undermine Title IX sex-based protections and lead to male violence to women and young girls

One question for you, Penguin pop, and/or Matt. I've seen you guys writing about Titles (as in the quote above). What are those titles?

Matt Franko said...

Mag they are Titled sections of US Law (Civil Rights Act) and in Education

Title 7 is based on race/gender discrimination and Title 9 is based on gender mostly in education...

imo the alt-right movement here in the US is largely a pushback against last 25 years of title 7... Obama was the first 'Title 7' President...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Affimative Action came out of these laws where the institutions had to document affirmative outcomes so institutions did set-asides and quotas... hiring based on race and gender ...

alt-right is pushing back on these things...



Auburn Parks said...

Matt

I think its kinda funny how you blame Title 7 and 9 for the ALt rights racism and misogyny. As if Racists needs something like that to make them become racists. America has always been an extremely racist country ever since the pilgrims. That we put in laws to help deal with our horrible racist past and actions is not an argument that those laws caused the racism of the Alt right.

Matt Franko said...

Auburn the alt-right is a millennial and younger movement... those kids didnt grow up in segregation/apartheid.... they grew up in Affirmative Action, etc ie the Title 7 and 9 policies... meanwhile everything is f-ed up economically/materially ... so they are making the correlation...

Boomers grew up in segregation so they came up with Title 7 and 9 etc ... alt-right is a generational 'turning' to put it in Neil Howe terminology... they absolutely hate the Boomers... Trump (Bannon) is going after these people as the Boomers start to croak...

Matt Franko said...

Title 7 and Title 9 are going to cause you to take a hit materially as you are not selecting solely on material systems proficiency...

the long term social gains may be worth it but you cant be ignorant of the short term costs in (real) material terms...

so we have the best 5' tall human vagina costumes and makers in the world but our infrastructure is all jacked up... this is what you get short term...

Auburn Parks said...

Everything you just said here is garbage Matt. Im sincerely not trying to just be a dick about this like I would be to the Anderson troll. But I honestly cant think of a more appropriate way to summarize the two comments you just made to me.

"Auburn the alt-right is a millennial and younger movement... those kids didnt grow up in segregation/apartheid.... they grew up in Affirmative Action, etc ie the Title 7 and 9 policies... meanwhile everything is f-ed up economically/materially ... so they are making the correlation...
"

This is completely irrelevant to anything. There are tons of racists in the USA young and old and there always has been since the very beginning. To think that young racists are created by the Title programs is just silly. If you believe something this dumb, then the nest appropriate logical consequence is for you to believe that if we didnt have these Title programs then there wouldnt be any or many less young racists. Which is of course just as ridiculous, proving that the original claim too is illogical.

"Blogger Matt Franko said...
Title 7 and Title 9 are going to cause you to take a hit materially as you are not selecting solely on material systems proficiency...

the long term social gains may be worth it but you cant be ignorant of the short term costs in (real) material terms..."

This is just as poorly thought out. We can just as easily say that racist and sexist designed systems also hurt our material system efficiency because they unnecessarily restrict the pool of possible applicants thereby removing the potential of a large portion of the citizenry.

The idea that the previous system before the Title programs were instituted was the better, more efficient system because it was more meritocratic is fantastical, as if white men are inherently better then minortities and women. White men long held on to positions that other more qualified and smarter people would have had if it wasnt for the previous system of discrimination.

This is the crux of why white men hate the Title programs so much. Average and below average white men are can no longer be as successful today as they could before the Civil rights ACT because now they face competition from the whole society and not from an artificially restricted pool of people. The most inefficient ecosystems are the ones with the smallest number of members as they cant take advantage of scale and large averages.

Matt Franko said...

auburn here LK has put up a recent speech by Carlson that gets to this issue a bit:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2017/03/tucker-carlsons-speech-on-trump-and.html

Carlson makes an interesting analogy to "over correction" here... and points out that in reality there are some legitimate economic policy questions to be asking where the appropriate response shouldnt be "xenophobia!!!" from the current unqualified peanut gallery...

Matt Franko said...

Ok tell me how the female that implemented NJ's "Bridgegate" for Christie who was a political 'science' major got her job to be in charge of the GW Bridge and f-ed it all up????

She had advanced degrees in Civil/Transportation Engineering? concrete? structural steel? flow management systems?

No it was "we need a female in there!" and she got the position and was obviously unqualified for it...

Auburn Parks said...

Why is this relevant to anything Ive said? Im certainly not guilty of doing the whole "xenophobia" thing, Im not a Democrat and I dont support the Dem leadership and courtiers who are doing it to distract from their own failures.

The reality is that its better to have a larger pool of people to draw on then a smaller pool. A better educated and healthier pool is better then a worse educated and unhealthier pool.

These are logical truisms.

Discrimination restricts all of these things to artificially support a smaller pool of privileged people (privileged relative to the excluded people not necessarily in some absolute sense). And as such is an inefficient system.

The title programs were put in place to try and make the selection pool larger and thus more efficient. If white men were willing to have made the pool larger on their own, there wouldnt have been a need for the title programs in the first place. But because US white men cant be trusted to not be racist and sexist society had no choice but to force their hand.

However if it ever goes too far the other way where Title people are being represented above their population ratios. That too can be inefficient and would need to be addressed

There is absolutely nothing controversial or illogical in any of these boundary conditions.

So to make a logical argument you need to address these issues. You do not. You just repeatedly assert that the Title programs have made our material system worse ie more inefficient. So you arent really making logical arguments, your just spouting your own personal, and not very well thought out beliefs.

Auburn Parks said...

Your individual anecdotal stories arent making a logical argument. Maybe she was Blowing christie to get the job, maybe her parents made a political donation, maybe she was more qualified then the other candidates, who fucking knows why this one lady was chosen for this one job. and Furthermore, who cares? It doesnt help us understand anything about the world.

Tom Hickey said...

Cultural differences.

I recall being surprised at the unisex restrooms and the unisex public baths when I was first in Japan. Got over it quickly. Cultural conditioning.

Tom Hickey said...

This is the crux of why white men hate the Title programs so much. Average and below average white men are can no longer be as successful today as they could before the Civil rights ACT because now they face competition from the whole society and not from an artificially restricted pool of people. The most inefficient ecosystems are the ones with the smallest number of members as they cant take advantage of scale and large averages.


Scapegoating, along with blaming immigration and offshoring.

The reality is that in a capitalist world "Average and below average white men" in developed countries are loosing economic power. So they are reacting by exerting social and political power.

Auburn Parks said...

Right Tom, they are losing the power the only ever had because of the previous discrimination environment. Society was essentially subsidizing many below average white men by not allowing any competition from other demographic groups. And they're pissed that they're gravy train is being shut down. They dont like having to compete in an open and equal playing field. Just like all the big multi-national corporations, they need to use the power of Govt to protect their positions because they dont want to compete in a fair environment. Cowards and hypocrites.

Penguin pop said...

"I recall being surprised at the unisex restrooms and the unisex public baths when I was first in Japan. Got over it quickly. Cultural conditioning."

I'd imagine the same thing would happen in the US if it were implemented. Some folks who have talked about this issue in videos said they would support unisex bathrooms in that sense.

Some other people have proposed a third bathroom for people who don't fit the male or female description and others have pointed out changing the bathroom stalls might help in reducing crimes there.

Penguin pop said...

In context, the latter would be a completely separate bathroom and male and female bathrooms would still be a thing.

Matthew Franko said...

Correct Tom these alt-right people were conditioned in the golden era of identity politics and they are just playing identity politics for their own identity...

Matthew Franko said...

" subsidizing many below average white men by not allowing any competition"

Spoken like a true social Darwinist... "survival of the fittest!"... everything is a stochastic process and we dont have to train people to be qualified just have to get lucky...

Please....

Matthew Franko said...

Just hire a bunch of people off the street to be electricians and the ones that survive and somehow dont electrocute themselves are the best people for the job...

The ones that kill themselves just couldnt hack it obviously...

Auburn Parks said...

Franko-

What on earth are you talking about? Is it even possible for you to have an honest discussion?

Evolution is the way the world works, its why we mostly see liberal market democracies and not socialist or fascist states. Our way was stronger and so it survived and spread. What does social darwinism have to do with anything Ive said?

White men make up like 35% of the population, if they have 100% of the important job positions that is clearly an inefficient system and a system like that is an obvious subsidy to white men. What about anything Ive said is wrong?

I mean if Im so wrong and so clueless, you should very easily be able to show why my arguments are wrong, like in the same manner I broke down your argument. It was very easy for me to do because your agrument was so lacking in a logical foundation.

But my guess is that you wont make a full and logical argument against me because you cant, you've got nothing, no leg to stand on.

Auburn Parks said...

Furthermore, if you only allow white men to go to engineering schools like we used to before your hated Title programs were put into place, then its logical that only white men can do those jobs as they're the only ones trained for it.

However, if you provide equal education opportunities to all people at engineering schools then certainly a minority of the population (white men) would not have 100% of the engineering jobs as they wont be better then everyone else on average.

A society's "best and brightest", by definition, cant come from just one minority demographic group. SO any society set up along these lines would necessarily be less productive and efficient when compared to an egalitarian society of opportunity.

Matthew Franko said...

Ummmm we have SAT tests and so forth that the academe uses to determine aptitude in math and verbal skills and they somewhat let the people who score highest on those standardized tests into the academe...

Then we train and test in the academe in order to prepare people for jobs that have education requirements/qualifications...

Its not like the academe drives around grabbing people off of the street via random processes....

Matthew Franko said...

There are actual degrees you can get in something called "Gender Studies"... so hence the 5' tall human vagina costumes...

Now we are saying the infrastructure is dilapidated and if so, then we would logically need people trained in these types of material systems...

Instead we have vagina costume constructors instead of bridge builders, etc... at least short term....

None of this is a stochastic process its all deterministic...

We have the workforce that we train for....

Auburn Parks said...

None of what you just said here has anything to do with anything Ive said. but whatever its just how you do things

Matthew Franko said...

Here this is just out on females % in Trump admin:

https://twitter.com/markets/status/839940916861370373

People follow this stuff...

The implication is that Trump should have 50% females at least in his admin period.

Maybe that female Christie had running the GW Bridge and f-ed that all up is available to run the DOT...

Auburn Parks said...

Sure, women are 50% of the population.

Ive asked before and youve failed to answer so Ill give it another try. What does this woman have to do with anything? Should I point some fuck up made by a man and use that as my argument for why men shouldnt do something? Of course I shouldnt because only people incapable of rigorous, logical thinking would think that individual anecdotes determine anything.

Six said...

"Identity politics" are nothing new; they've been around as long as politics have been around. In fact, they used to be baked into the rules, e.g. you had to be a land owning (identity) white (another identity) male (yet another identity) to participate. Now "identity politics" is a term people use to deflect a conversation or defend a defenseless position.

Matt Franko said...

We train and test applicants in order for them to become qualified... to look at any other parameters such as gender or melanin content of skin is going to result in less than optimal technical results...

The projected social i.e. NON material results of discriminating based on gender and race parameters you could argue are worth the short term material hit...

Auburn Parks said...

"We train and test applicants in order for them to become qualified... to look at any other parameters such as gender or melanin content of skin is going to result in less than optimal technical results... "

And if white men could or can be trusted to not be racist and sexist in their choices we wouldnt need to have any Title rules in place. But white men cannot be trusted as history demonstrates.

but the real crux of the issue Franko is that you are totally wrong about how affirmative action works. Affirmative action, per the supreme court, is not a quota system, in fact the statute specifically says:

" Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, you cannot base a hiring decision, in whole or in part, on a person's race or gender. In addition, under Executive Order 11246, a college or university must take affirmative steps to ensure its hiring practices are fair, equitable, and free from discrimination. It must also take steps to get the word out about open positions and target outreach efforts to ensure the applicant pool is as diverse and qualified as possible. In the end, the most qualified person is hired. "

So your bitching and moaning about unqualified women and minorities getting work over more qualified white men is all bullshit.

Its actually pretty embarrassing that you spend so much time complaining about a program that you apparently havent the foggiest idea about.

Magpie said...

@Matt,


Matt Franko said...

Mag they are Titled sections of US Law (Civil Rights Act) and in Education

Title 7 is based on race/gender discrimination and Title 9 is based on gender mostly in education...


Thanks. I thought it was some kind of Yank slang, or something :-)

Auburn Parks said...

Here is more:

"https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=246

"The regulations explicitly state "Quotas are expressly forbidden...[i]n all employment decisions, the contractor must make selections in a nondiscriminatory manner. Placement goals do not provide the contractor with a justification to extend a preference to any individual, select an individual, or adversely affect an individual's employment status, on the basis of that person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." "

But hey, its much more fun to just iignorantly talk out of your ass about unqualified women and minorities hurting our material wealth because they are so unqualified (look some woman did something dumb = proof) and if we only put in place rich white men with their obvious "material system competence" the world would be wonderful again.

jrbarch said...

“Compassion” [Noah Way]

Lot of water flowed under the bridge above NW, but: (com)-passion.

So, ‘together with’ passion. Parents fall in love, and out of that love (passion) are born beautiful children whom they nurture – all of that passion (love) remains, but also transforms, extends itself, as compassion; becoming a deeper wider more transcendent and inclusive love. Until you get to the point where the love extends to all of humanity, and universally, through knowledge of the Self. So definitely important to a human being as every Buddhist is keenly aware.

Thinking about the discussion above between AP+Matt, both are making valid points if you understand them from the pov of human strength.

Consider domestic violence: - if a human being does not know how to love themselves, then how can they love another? First, they need to learn how to love and respect themselves. Then, they can extend this love to another and the DVO becomes unnecessary. Women know the strength of a human being is in their ability to love. They know that in love there is wisdom and clarity; peace, dignity, and human prosperity. They know it is through love that humanity can thrive, learn and grow, and being more evolved than the men () it bestows on them this wonderful ‘intelligence’.

Men live in their thoughts and their concepts and argue the point. Women anchor themselves in the heart. Women know that men who surround themselves with overt masculinity, aggression, violence, and greed are not strong human beings and speak of this among each other. Women have suckled these men as babies and loved them; despite what they grow up to become. Without love, domestic violence becomes global.

So from the male perspective it is all about training and competence, logic and intellect, rules and regulations, systems, to try to promote ‘equality’, mind; from the female it is all about intelligence anchored in the heart. In their integration emerges the true human personality of either gender.

Matthew Franko said...

Here's Harvard's pov:

""AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" is a governmentally required positive effort, beyond elimination of discrimination, to seek out and employ persons of groups that have been discriminated against. It is a requirement now imposed on all Federal contractors, which includes almost all employers. Now required as part of a program of affirmative action are "goals" and "timetables"--how many of each protected group the employer hopes to add in a given period of time. "

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1973/3/20/affirmative-action-vs-quotas-pbabffirmative-action/

The alt-right are not a bunch of racist neo-Confederates going out and re-enacting the 1st Battle of Bull Run... they have a political beef with these racial preference policies that they have grown up under and are advocating politically for what they see as their own "identity"... classic identity politics 101...

We shouldnt be surprised...

Here is Spencer explaining it to Rowan Martin its pretty simple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQSsvFTV2mc



Six said...

That doesn't seem to be "Harvard's pov", Matt, but instead Nathan Glazer's pov written in the Harvard Crimson in 1973.

Matthew Franko said...

Oh ok... Affirmative Action doesnt exist...

this is like when Trump says: 'I'm a germ-a-phobe...'

and then you left idiots come up with:

"Trump hired hookers in Moscow to urinate on him in his hotel!"

or we have all of these libertarian morons going all around saying 'we're out of money!"

and then you left idiots come up with:

"no they dont think we're out of money, it's all a giant neo-liberal conspiracy!"

Why cant you left morons just believe people when they tell you how they think?

We have a huge cohort of white males that are starting to advocate for their own "identity" in an era of identity politics what is so hard about accepting that?

Why do you people just not accept this and have to dream up all sorts of fantasies about what is really going on?

Six said...

"We have a huge cohort of white males that are starting to advocate for their own "identity" in an era of identity politics what is so hard about accepting that?"

I do accept that. A very large percentage of them are whiny bitches. A very large percentage of them push for policies that undermines their own future. The exact same thing can be said about a very large portion of other "identities" on the left.