Night of the Living ComCap Debate....

[Velociryx]

Ohhhh! I can't wait till Kid sees that one! (well, and my question above, which I'm also curious to get a confirmation on)

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, just so I understand your logic here:

You are saying that increases in productivity lead to aggregate job loss in the market?

-=Vel=-

Yep net sum zero arguement.

Additionally, the massive recessions undo any positive growth in the up years if I read correctly.

Stay tuned at 11:00 on Kid News

this just in, unemployment causes cancer.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, just so I understand your logic here:

You are saying that increases in productivity lead to aggregate job loss in the market?

-=Vel=-

No. Productivity improvements cause higher unemployment Mr. Straw.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Some argue that the USSR started out way behind, but it collapsed. Why did it start out so far behind? Because the west had largely adopted capitalistic systems giving it both a head start and longevity.

No one is saying that capitalism can't be productive Berzerker. We're saying that it is unstable and headed for collapse.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What if any evidence do you have that would indicate that the cycle of recession/depression in capitalistic societies is increasing in frequency or severity to be categorized as unstable?

All I'm hearing so far is speculation on a grand scale. If I wanted that I would visit the swami down the street.

[Velociryx]

Ummm.....but is not higher unemployment caused by there being fewer jobs in the market?

I mean, if unemployment goes up....then there's less jobs out there, yes? And if so, then productivity gains = net job loss = higher unemployment?

-=Vel=-
(just making sure I'm understanding your argument)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ummm.....but is not higher unemployment caused by there being fewer jobs in the market?

I mean, if unemployment goes up....then there's less jobs out there, yes? And if so, then productivity gains = net job loss = higher unemployment?

-=Vel=-
(just making sure I'm understanding your argument)

I know what you are trying to do Vel. I've played this stupid childish game before.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
What if any evidence do you have that would indicate that the cycle of recession/depression in capitalistic societies is increasing in frequency or severity to be categorized as unstable?

All I'm hearing so far is speculation on a grand scale. If I wanted that I would visit the swami down the street.

Strawman.

[Kidlicious]

Ogie,

Yes we had the longest expansion in history, but that says nothing about the future. The new economy was only one expansion period. It doesn't mean that capitalism has improved in the long run. For one, the rest of the world didn't have an expansion period like that. And two, we see now with the current recession that those days are over.

[Velociryx]

So now you're not saying that productivity gains lead to job loss.

Which is it, kid?

Do gains in productivity lead to job loss, or don't they?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


So now you're not saying that productivity gains lead to job loss.

Which is it, kid?

Do gains in productivity lead to job loss, or don't they?

-=Vel=-

You know they do Vel. Go ahead and make your strawman argument now.

[Velociryx]

No strawman argument to make, I'm just making sure I understand you and this unique economic logic you bring to the table.

Safe to say too, that over the last 20 years, there have been steady productivity gains. What I'm wondering is, in your mind, what has that done to the overall size of the job market?

Given the productivity advances, and the fact that productivity decreases the number of jobs....the market should be a fair bit smaller now than it was 20 years ago, yes?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: The job market, I mean.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No strawman argument to make, I'm just making sure I understand you and this unique economic logic you bring to the table.

Safe to say too, that over the last 20 years, there have been steady productivity gains. What I'm wondering is, in your mind, what has that done to the overall size of the job market?

Given the productivity advances, and the fact that productivity decreases the number of jobs....the market should be a fair bit smaller now than it was 20 years ago, yes?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: The job market, I mean.

There are factors that create jobs. Productivity gains are not one of those.

[Velociryx]

Of course, when I tried to argue that earlier, you made it clear that job losses due to productivity gains easily countered job creation factors.

So give me an indication: Given the productivity gains of the last 20 years, all the factory jobs lost due to companies leaving the US for SE Asia, etc., what's the job market look like in all. More, Less, or about the same as 20 years ago?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Of course, when I tried to argue that earlier, you made it clear that job losses due to productivity gains easily countered job creation factors.

So give me an indication: Given the productivity gains of the last 20 years, all the factory jobs lost due to companies leaving the US for SE Asia, etc., what's the job market look like in all. More, Less, or about the same as 20 years ago?

-=Vel=-

In terms of the US the early 80s were very bad and the 90s were good, yes. Right now it looks like we are headed back to the long-term trend. In that case the unemployment rate will be higher than it was in 1983 this decade. BTW, world employment was nothing like US employment in the 90s.

My point is that, yes population increases, and so the total number of jobs may increase during cerain periods, but productivity gains have an increasing effect and job creation has a decreasing effect. We are headed down a dark hole.