Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe your absolutely retarded dumb [deleted] example muddied the waters a bit?

- Doc

[_ajax18]

The point of the thought experiment is to understand that as labor is freed up to diversify into more productive sectors, that raises the value of equivalent wages.

Wouldn't machines have the same effect?

[_EAllusion]

The example is something I vaguely remember from an illustration I read, but cool.

In an interesting coincidence, this exact same point was brought up in a conversation after this one with neo-liberal shill bracket finalist Matthew Yglesias.

It starts out with him reacting to to this analysis:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXs1qA7X0AENOBF.jpg

He says,

I find these takes, as applied to both the UK and the US, kind of infuriating.

Speaking to the US case:

It is true that there are many voters who hold beliefs about immigration that are inaccurate. And it is also true that practical politicians have to try to deal with that reality. That said, those beliefs really are inaccurate!

It’s not true that the United States has open borders. It’s not true that immigration reduces the skill-level of the American workforce or the wages of native-born workers. It’s not true that immigration burdens the welfare state.

It’s certainly possible to strike hard-boiled political compromises with people who hold false beliefs. But the demand that cosmopolitans demonstrate “respect” for the views of people who don’t like immigration by pretending their factual beliefs are correct is nonsensical. And for journalists and other such “elites” it’s really important to try to provide people with accurate information rather than try to act “in touch” by pretending false things are true.

Yeah, that's the correct response. And if you're wondering why Trump got elected, the idea that journalists have to pander to people who believe his false assertions regarding immigration and other things to be "fair" is not a bad piece of the puzzle to look at.

Someone responds:

I get that most macro-level evidence says no negative wage pressure from immigration, but can you explain why the intuitive effect doesn't happen? How can it be true that increasing the supply of, say, ag workers on SoCal doesn't reduce wages?

So Matthew Yglesias responds,

Imagine a world in which the entire population of the United States is five people. Would average living standards be higher or lower?

Heh. And here I was courteous enough to use 100. Hopefully heads do not explode.

Someone else chimes in with this Socratic illustration, but it has more thought experiments to illustrate the same point, so you know, more 'splodey.

[_EAllusion]

Wouldn't machines have the same effect?

Yes. Isn't that the entire economic history of man's use of improving tools?

The fear with a looming automation boom, which I think is that you are getting at, is that it will be so extensive and quick as to crowd out demand for labor and concentrate economic gains in the ownership class. If productivity gains from A.I. doesn't free up people to do other work because those jobs are also being done by machines, that could be a problem. It all depends on what the machines are competing with.

In theory, if the transition can be managed, people should be way better off with machines doing more of what we do now.

[_moksha]

Picture of Mike Pence grabbing a pussy.

[_ajax18]

The fear with a looming automation boom, which I think is that you are getting at, is that it will be so extensive and quick as to crowd out demand for labor and concentrate economic gains in the ownership class. If productivity gains from A.I. doesn't free up people to do other work because those jobs are also being done by machines, that could be a problem.

Is it possible that unrestrained immigration of unskilled labor could have a similar negative effect as this or even worse?

[_honorentheos]

Ajax,

The key thing to note in EA's comment is this -" If productivity gains from A.I. doesn't free up people to do other work because those jobs are also (my emphasis) being done by machines, that could be a problem."

Unskilled labor is essentially limited in regards to what jobs it can replace by being unskilled. One of the key concerns with machine-labor is that the machines can and do assume the role of skilled laborer and the human involvement is converted to a role that requires less skill with corresponding lower pay. Hypothetically this efficiency in the overall economy means more people can pursue interests they are specialized for and create new types of jobs that didn't exist prior and that's the historical argument, too.

But the concern with the role of technology is that larger and larger segments of producing goods and services would be done by an entity that is not participating in the economy so the capital movement becomes more and more restricted to a smaller class of people who are incentivized to horde wealth rather than circulate it. The unskilled immigrant who took Markk's job from the '70s still requires being paid who in turn circulates their pay back into the economy creating multiplier benefits as well. The machine that builds machines that squeeze concrete houses out of tubes won't draw a paycheck and won't be a participant in the economy. If the owners of the machines horde their wealth, there are lost economic benefits because of that. And this trickles out into the ability of the person displaced by that machine to create new kinds of work through their own specific interests they are freed up to do otherwise.

Anyway, if a person aspires to leave high school early and get a good job without a diploma, or even with only a HS diploma, they are in a tough situation either way. That's not changing and it's not because there are immigrants coming into America taking these jobs. It's market forces at work doing that whole efficiency thing they are supposed to do that is kinda bread and butter for free market advocates.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

But the concern with the role of technology is that larger and larger segments of producing goods and services would be done by an entity that is not participating in the economy so the capital movement becomes more and more restricted to a smaller class of people who are incentivized to horde wealth rather than circulate it. The unskilled immigrant who took Markk's job from the '70s still requires being paid who in turn circulates their pay back into the economy creating multiplier benefits as well. The machine that builds machines that squeeze concrete houses out of tubes won't draw a paycheck and won't be a participant in the economy. If the owners of the machines horde their wealth, there are lost economic benefits because of that. And this trickles out into the ability of the person displaced by that machine to create new kinds of work through their own specific interests they are freed up to do otherwise.

Anyway, if a person aspires to leave high school early and get a good job without a diploma, or even with only a HS diploma, they are in a tough situation either way. That's not changing and it's not because there are immigrants coming into America taking these jobs. It's market forces at work doing that whole efficiency thing they are supposed to do that is kinda bread and butter for free market advocates.

Doesn't that undermine the idea that massive unchecked immigration of unskilled labor into America is a good thing? You're stating that native unskilled labor needs to get its crap together in order to stay afloat in this economy all the while stating massive foreign unskilled labor increases everyone's bottom line because consumption.

Wew lad.

- Doc

[Guest]

Again, Cam, you're locking in on this idea that your son or daughter just out of high school is worse off because they are in a one-on-one competition for a job with an immigrant. That's simply not true of your son or daughter's situation, though.

My real argument is that there needs to be disincentives for hording wealth to maintain the benefits of automation and immigrant labor. There's a certain irony in the complaint by blue collar conservatives against immigrant labor in my perspective because of this.

[_EAllusion]

You're stating that native unskilled labor needs to get its crap together in order to stay afloat in this economy all the while stating massive foreign unskilled labor increases everyone's bottom line because consumption.

Wew lad.

- Doc

Everyone's (well, most of everyone's) bottom line gets increased because displaced labor finds marginally more productive things to do.

At current levels of immigration, the overall effect is slight. But yeah, this is the underlying basis for why people without a high school diploma are hurt a little while everyone else is helped a little.

If you are looking at government intervention into the free exchange of goods and services to help people who have little skills maintain a standard of living you find minimally acceptable, why address this through an interventionist immigration policy that is otherwise harmful instead of all the other ways you can manipulate the economic exchanges for redistributionist effects such as an earned income tax credit?