Ha! Berzerker, I found stats to defend my claims.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ha! Berzerker, I found stats to defend my claims.

Well that's a first.... even though the stats don't really defend his claims .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yes, his assertion was that production gains reduce employment, not production gains and market
(over) saturation.

Take notes this time. You are missing important stuff. You don't remember discussing saturation?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hey Kid, those numbers don't reflect jobs in the computer industry which was what we were debating, remember?

Huh?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Second, those numbers are for the US, not the world, so they don't tell us much of anything about employment in the computer industry or electronics manufacturing. The whole picture has to be looked at since a wide variety of factors effect job totals in the US, like how many US manufacturing jobs have gone to places like Singapore, Indonesia and Mexico, etc., to avoid government meddling in the market here as opposed to those other places.

Is the US already a net importer of computers? I doubt it. Maybe you can find the stats for that since it's your claim.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Find out how many computers were sold worldwide in those years and we'll see if the market has become saturated.

Hey, if the market isn't saturated that means that productivity gains have caused all of the effect.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh yeah, how many people were employed in the electronics industry when Benjamin Franklin discovered the fluid nature of electricity? How many were employed when the light bulb was invented and production gains allowed for it's mass production? We wouldn't have hardly any electronics industry without production gains, so the mere fact anyone is employed making computers at all is a net plus.

More irrelevent nonsense. The fact is that a smaller percentage of the labor force is now required to build computers and that has caused unemployment. That's my argument.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Take notes this time. You are missing important stuff. You don't remember discussing saturation?

I remember your fascination with it, but the debate was about whether or not production gains destroy jobs. Saturation was a different issue you brought up when faced with overwhelming evidence refuting your claim about production gains, i.e., you tried to change the subject.

Huh?

*sigh* You said production gains destroy jobs and I pointed to the computer industry to show how production gains in that industry has created lots of jobs. I also pointed to the auto industry...are we going to continue the debate or repeat what we said in the other thread? Hell, I don't want to do either, but since you used my nick in your title for some reason, oh well... I'll make a token response or two until someone else is sucked in.

Is the US already a net importer of computers? I doubt it. Maybe you can find the stats for that since it's your claim.

That isn't my claim. And it doesn't matter, the fact is jobs making computers overseas have been increasing and some of these countries have given US, European and Japanese producers "incentives" to move jobs abroad. For example, country "A" tells a computer maker they will have to build a factory in "A" and employ people there if they want to sell computers in "A". China does this alot...

Hey, if the market isn't saturated that means that productivity gains have caused all of the effect.

I have no idea what that means, but obviously saturation hasn't happened and won't until computers are either obsolete or without room for improvement and everyone has all the computers they want. The fact computers are being sold means saturation hasn't occured. Isn't that what saturation means? That people are "satiated" and need no more computers?

More irrelevent nonsense. The fact is that a smaller percentage of the labor force is now required to build computers and that has caused unemployment. That's my argument.

You're still ignoring that even the smaller, needed labor force exists because of productin gains. But note taken, your argument makes no mention of "saturation".

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
*sigh* You said production gains destroy jobs and I pointed to the computer industry to show how production gains in that industry has created lots of jobs. I also pointed to the auto industry...are we going to continue the debate or repeat what we said in the other thread? Hell, I don't want to do either, but since you used my nick in your title for some reason, oh well... I'll make a token response or two until someone else is sucked in.

Computers are electronics. That's why I gave you the stats for the electronics industry. I'm satisfied to show that the electronics industry is a smaller percentage of GDP. That just shows that porductivity growth in the whole industry has caused unemployument.

Originally posted by Berzerker
That isn't my claim. And it doesn't matter, the fact is jobs making computers overseas have been increasing and some of these countries have given US, European and Japanese producers "incentives" to move jobs abroad. For example, country "A" tells a computer maker they will have to build a factory in "A" and employ people there if they want to sell computers in "A". China does this alot...

What do overseas jobs have to do with our industry it we are exporting computers? The only way that overseas producers would affect our industries is if we were net importers of computers.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I have no idea what that means, but obviously saturation hasn't happened and won't until computers are either obsolete or without room for improvement and everyone has all the computers they want. The fact computers are being sold means saturation hasn't occured. Isn't that what saturation means? That people are "satiated" and need no more computers?

You could have done some lite research on the Law of Diminishing Utility during the break.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You're still ignoring that even the smaller, needed labor force exists because of productin gains. But note taken, your argument makes no mention of "saturation".

They also exist because of demand for the product. The point is that less workers in the industry exist, because of the productivity gains.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Computers are electronics. That's why I gave you the stats for the electronics industry.

But not all electronics are computers, so your stat leaves something to be desired - accuracy.

I'm satisfied to show that the electronics industry is a smaller percentage of GDP. That just shows that porductivity growth in the whole industry has caused unemployument.

You don't see the irony in that? The growth has caused unemployment? There wouldn't be employment without the growth! Btw, even that argument is false, GDP can grow because of increases in other sectors of the economy without resulting in a loss of jobs in another sector. If I give you $10 out of the $20 I'm making, increasing my salary to $22 and keeping your's at $10 doesn't mean you've lost money even though "GDP" - my salary - increased.

What do overseas jobs have to do with our industry it we are exporting computers?

What does a production gain have to do with only our industry? Don't you include all the jobs created or lost by the gain regardless of where they are created or lost? A production gain is not defined by an imaginary line drawn on a map...

The only way that overseas producers would affect our industries is if we were net importers of computers.

Net importation only means we export fewer computers than we import, we can import fewer computers than we export and still have those imports affect our industry. But you're ignoring all the electronics made and sold overseas. If production gains in computers have destroyed jobs, you have to count all the jobs in the computer industry, not just the jobs in one country. Your stat ignores the rest of the world...

You could have done some lite research on the Law of Diminishing Utility during the break.

Gee, I could have watched baseball too...and I did... Is that another one of your "laws" like "production gains destroy jobs"? If so, no thanks, ain't worth my time. You didn't answer any of my questions, I guess they aren't worth your time either.

They also exist because of demand for the product. The point is that less workers in the industry exist, because of the productivity gains.

So I'll ask you again, are there more people employed making computers today than 30 years ago? Are there more people employed making cars today than 90 years ago? Lots of production gains there and more people employed - doesn't speak well for your argument... You're forgetting that as a production gain improves a product and lowers it's cost, more people will be able to buy it. And that's why cars and computers are owned by more people than when those products were in their infancy AND why there are more people employed making those products.

Sorry Kid, but we've done this to death and we're still making the same arguments to no avail. Cya...

[Kidlicious]

I'm not just making the same old arguments. I'm bringing in relevant statistics. Of course you will reject them, but that doesn't mean you win.