Obama blames the rise of the machines for high unemployment.

[Annie]

Obama blames the rise of the machines for high unemployment.

I thought it was Bush's fault?

It was, until it stopped working. Now it's time to move it forward.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, what this thread proves is that the left is mired in the past and doesn't have a clue about the dynamics of labor markets, innovation and technology. Labor needs change rapidly in today's world, fueled by the acceleration of technology advances.

Hell, in my field, which for the last decade or so has been almost exclusively devoted to accounting software and such, is now rapidly changing to total ERP solutions, etc. You adapt. I spend significantly more time these days learning new technology.. it's just the way it is.

And what does that have to do with the fact the Republicans have nothing better to offer?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The President is full of shit! Obama is still trying to scapegoat his failure.

The plow & horse did not create permanent unemployment for farmers with hoes. The Steam Shovel did not do the same to ditch diggers & miners. There have been countless innovations throughout history that replace human labor. New jobs are always created by the advancements in lifestyles that outpaced the ones lost by labor replacing machine. If anything we have to many overeducated government dependent sissy's & to few blue collar workers to build oil pipelines & oil rigs, or operate drilling & mining equipment.

The only thing this country lacks is leadership.

The plow & horse did not create permanent unemployment for farmers with hoes


thats because the farmer usually did the work himself.....the the plow and horse just made his job easier.....same with the Tractor......but some machines have replaced people were there used to be hundreds working that job.....now there are just those feeding the machine and maintaining it....


The only thing this country lacks is leadership

i have been saying this quite often....

Technology has not made it possible for fewer and fewer farmers to produce more and more farm product?

good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All this subject proves is that the Republicans wouldn't have any better luck creating jobs even if you put them back in power.

There's not a single aspect of the GOP economic agenda that is going to overcome this reality of the shrinking pool of labor intensive businesses in the US.

Yea because as we all know if we lowered our corporate tax rate to compete with the rest of the world or removed some of the anti business regulations or make our nation a right to work nation that none of our jobs might come back. Hell even the burdens that unions put on our companies if relaxed could increase employment for everyone instead of just a select few.

I own a small remodeling business and when I've worked on large commercial jobs I've been picketed. Like someone else deserves the job more than me.

If you had bothered to research the topic you'd have found out that the tax cuts and credits that businesses have gotten are going into investment in machinery, not labor.

Not to mention the fact that we have what is essentially an employer based healthcare system that is eating up twice as big a percent of our GDP as most of our competitors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is validity to this.

Research departments of dozens are replaced with one person who knows how to perform boolean searches on the internet.

A team of switchboard operators are replaced by voice mail and only one receptionist for overflow

One secretary per executive is replaced by one secretary per 3 or 4 executives with advanced WP and graphics programs

A mailroom of multiple clerks is replaced by one or two mailroom people with the increase use of e-mail

Now...they may not sound like a lot of people...but when you spread it over tens of thousands of companies...it adds up.

With concern of head count...cost of insuring headcount......increase in employment regulations.....companies have been spending more money on new technology to accomodate growth as opposed to increasing the payroll

All of that has NOTHING to do with the recent spike in unemployment. All the semantic arguments in the world don't change anything. What Obama doesn't understand is that booksmarts =/= common sense, and sometimes that's all you need.

Actually the president's point is supported by independent objective research such as is exemplified by this article:

Companies Accelerate Spending as U.S. Productivity Bypasses Jobs - Bloomberg

 

[NYcarbineer]

Agreed

What I laid out earlier was why we have had prosperous times without a dramatic increase in employment percentage

Interestingly, as I see it (I am a business planner and human resource solutions consultant in NYC).....

in the last decade (2000-2007)....despite an increase in population, an increase in the retirement age, and an increase in major technoology (as I laid out earlier)....there was NOT an increase in unemployment except during times of recession (market saturation caused as is usually the norm)..

So when the pundits talk about how few jobs were created during the Bush years...they are either niave or disingenuous....

Truth is....people did quite well during those years...and unemployment was quite stable....and all of the negative ingredients were there for increased unemployment...

and by the way....recall Obamas one liner...

"are you better now than youy were 8 years ago".....he had the gall to ask that during a recession...if he had asked that question a year earlier...most would have said "hell yeah, Im a lot better off"

But he asked it during a recession when people are ALWAYS concerned....

He fooled the masses....and he still fools many of them.

The man is an asshole.

Enough said.

I also run a small business. Have for over 20 years. The downturn started affecting me at the end of June and it hasn't picked back up yet. Oddly enough I timed my losses to about the same time Obama became the nominee. Makes me think that along with all the other issues the prospect of him as president caused even more fear.

Ah yes the Obama presidency scared the business community so bad they practically doubled the stock market in 2 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The current unemployment rate in the U.S. for someone with a only a H.S. diploma is 9.5%

The current unemployment rate for someone with at least a bachelor's degree is 4.5%.

And yet, do Republicans/conservatives want to invest in Education?

Generally...

...No.

 

[editec]

If education is the solution to the unemployment problem (I content that it really cannot be the solution because if anything, techology is replacing workers much faster than the workforce could ever adapt ) then consider the following about what's happening to education:

Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.

Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers.”

Last year, the net cost at a four-year public university amounted to 28 percent of the median family income, while a four-year private university cost 76 percent of the median family income.

Among the poorest families — those with incomes in the lowest 20 percent — the net cost of a year at a public university was 55 percent of median income, up from 39 percent in 1999-2000. At community colleges, long seen as a safety net, that cost was 49 percent of the poorest families’ median income last year, up from 40 percent in 1999-2000.

sources above


Now consider what is happening in the manufacturing base in America.

U.S. manufacturing today.
• 5.5 million – the number of manufacturing jobs lost in the last decade – roughly one-third of the manufacturing workforce.

• 51,000 – the number of manufacturing plants shuttered in the last decade.

• 2.4 million – the number of American jobs lost or displaced between 2001-2008 due to our massive and growing trade deficit with China.

• 40 – the percent that China’s currency is undervalued.

• 83 – the percent of our trade deficit in non-oil goods in 2009 attributable to China.

source

The thoughtless mantra:

Workers must adapt to advances in technology or die! ​

while correct, really offers no solution to the SYSTEMIC problem that mankind is facing.

Advances in efficiency due to modern techology replace workers but DOES NOT create alternative jobs for the displaced.

In point of fact, most workers whose jobs are lost to increases in efficiency CANNOT adapt by getting more education, folks.

Why not? Well think about it, folks.



The workforce is NOT all 20 something years olds, with higher than average IQs, and with unlimted capital to go back to school to start new careers.


Most people who lose their jobs are stuck where they live, with bills to pay and families to raise.


They are NOT kids. They are mid career with responsibilities they took on back when they were PRODUCTIVE members of society.



Our rapidly advancing tecnological society is moving on but does NOT offer any path for most displaced workers to take them along for the ride.


Let remember, also, shall we, that:

the median IQ in this nation is 100!
​

And it is PRECISELY those kinds of jobs that the AVERAGE worker could do that advances in efficiency are FOREVER DESTROYING.


You see...this is a systemic problem and one that as yet few of us are even willing to acknowledge.

 

[Steelplate]

Excellent post editec.

 

[Sallow]

Excellent post editec.

Here here.

We waste our most valuable resources on a daily basis.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What I laid out earlier was why we have had prosperous times without a dramatic increase in employment percentage

Interestingly, as I see it (I am a business planner and human resource solutions consultant in NYC).....

in the last decade (2000-2007)....despite an increase in population, an increase in the retirement age, and an increase in major technoology (as I laid out earlier)....there was NOT an increase in unemployment except during times of recession (market saturation caused as is usually the norm)..

So when the pundits talk about how few jobs were created during the Bush years...they are either niave or disingenuous....

Truth is....people did quite well during those years...and unemployment was quite stable....and all of the negative ingredients were there for increased unemployment...

and by the way....recall Obamas one liner...

"are you better now than youy were 8 years ago".....he had the gall to ask that during a recession...if he had asked that question a year earlier...most would have said "hell yeah, Im a lot better off"

But he asked it during a recession when people are ALWAYS concerned....

He fooled the masses....and he still fools many of them.

The man is an asshole.

Enough said.

I also run a small business. Have for over 20 years. The downturn started affecting me at the end of June and it hasn't picked back up yet. Oddly enough I timed my losses to about the same time Obama became the nominee. Makes me think that along with all the other issues the prospect of him as president caused even more fear.

Ah yes the Obama presidency scared the business community so bad they practically doubled the stock market in 2 years.

Wallstreet =/= mainstreet. LOL

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Excellent post editec.

How stupid can you be? You make demands of me. I respond to your demands. You then tell me I'm an uncomprimising partisan. I point out my compromises with your points and wait for your response. And you hide like a whipped puppy dog with nothing to say. Then you show your face again after I shoved it in that pile of shit that you posted?
Welcome to the ignore list fool.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The current unemployment rate in the U.S. for someone with a only a H.S. diploma is 9.5%

The current unemployment rate for someone with at least a bachelor's degree is 4.5%.

And yet, do Republicans/conservatives want to invest in Education?

Generally...

...No.

Since you didn't give any perspective to your stats I will for you. Although they prove your point kinda silly and mute.

Unemployment rate for college grads is highest since 1970 - USATODAY.com

Yet, the educated may now be bearing the brunt of a sluggish recovery. The jobless rate for high school graduates improved from 10.1% in October and is down from 10.9% in June. Maki partly credits a robust turnaround for restaurants, which added 34,000 jobs the past two months. And manufacturers added 134,000 from January to May.
At the same time, unemployment in the "management, business and financial" category leapt to 5.5% in November from 4.3% in September and is the highest on records back to 2000. Those figures are not seasonally adjusted. The broad category includes accountants and managers in human resources and food services. Many are occupations that require a college education.
Jorge Perez, a senior vice president for Manpower, says employers have cut layers of managers and melded jobs, reducing the need to hire. And, he says, some unemployed computer workers, for example, lack skills for the fast-changing field.
Harry Griendling, CEO of DoubleStar, a human resources consultant, cites employers' tendency to trim staff and enlist contractors for projects, partly due to uncertainty about taxes and health care reform. Many, he says, are more likely to make such cuts toward year's end as they plan annual budgets.

 

[Steelplate]

Where did I meet you half way? Your kidding right? Are you blind or just lacking reading comprehension? I'll placate you and highlight a few but I suggest instead of just stating your view then blindly disregarding mine, actually read it. This just proves my point that you didn't actually want to debate but rather just make your points mixed with thinly veiled insults.

Here ya go:

) I don't disagree that not everyone can lead and some must follow. And yes I do agree that the lobbying system is corrupt as are many of the politicians. But that doesn't leave us powerless



As far as your corporate welfare stance we agree. Unfortunately ending ethanol subsidies just failed to pass. I have yet to see how my congressmen voted but I will, and emails will be sent accordingly.


You can't preach to me about the needs of the disabled as my step-daughter has CP. I whole heartedly agree with a full safety net for those that can't take care of themselves. She had around 9 different spine, leg, knee, and neck surgeries before I met her mother. All paid for by uncle Sam.


Now after your done eating your words ill be waiting for a "real" response to our discussion.

Ok.... Wow... you are a hothead. I guess I'm on your ignore list now... sorry for missing your post... and if you choose to look back in the posts... I was responding to a person named avatar... and you defended him, which is fine... you can defend anyone you want to... but unfortunately, I screwed up and thought you were avatar when I responded with the "Where have you met me half way" post.

So... at the risk of you not seeing this because I am now on your ignore list(which really doesn't bother me all that much), I will answer you.

What do you propose to do with those people who cannot lead? Are they screwed? Do they only deserve a life of poverty and want, or are they our fellow citizens that deserve a decent life too?

Ethanol subsidies? Ok... that is one of MANY ways our Government panders to the wealthy... but some of those people are not wealthy... they are mom and pop farmers trying to compete against full scale agribusiness. How about we end subsidies for Agribusiness, but keep them for family farms?

I can preach to you about the needs of the disabled. I have worked in the field since Reagan was in office and I have seen our resources dwindle and the calls for privatization rise. I have also seen the results of the trend. Private sector "Group Homes" are now what State Institutions Used to be in the 70's. They are staffed by minimum wage, unskilled people doing a job that requires much more training than these "for profit" entities are willing to provide. Plus, who gives a shit if you lose a minimum wage job? Lose a state job with benefits... that's a different story. You are going to tow the line a hell of a lot better.

Most of our Homeless problem is mentally ill people with no place to go. Reagan nearly killed Federal Funding to Mental Health Facilities... that put them on the street.

I am very sorry about your sister. But just because your sister is disabled does not make you an expert on what is happening around you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Where did I meet you half way? Your kidding right? Are you blind or just lacking reading comprehension? I'll placate you and highlight a few but I suggest instead of just stating your view then blindly disregarding mine, actually read it. This just proves my point that you didn't actually want to debate but rather just make your points mixed with thinly veiled insults.

Here ya go:

) I don't disagree that not everyone can lead and some must follow. And yes I do agree that the lobbying system is corrupt as are many of the politicians. But that doesn't leave us powerless



As far as your corporate welfare stance we agree. Unfortunately ending ethanol subsidies just failed to pass. I have yet to see how my congressmen voted but I will, and emails will be sent accordingly.


You can't preach to me about the needs of the disabled as my step-daughter has CP. I whole heartedly agree with a full safety net for those that can't take care of themselves. She had around 9 different spine, leg, knee, and neck surgeries before I met her mother. All paid for by uncle Sam.


Now after your done eating your words ill be waiting for a "real" response to our discussion.

Ok.... Wow... you are a hothead. I guess I'm on your ignore list now... sorry for missing your post... and if you choose to look back in the posts... I was responding to a person named avatar... and you defended him, which is fine... you can defend anyone you want to... but unfortunately, I screwed up and thought you were avatar when I responded with the "Where have you met me half way" post.

So... at the risk of you not seeing this because I am now on your ignore list(which really doesn't bother me all that much), I will answer you.

What do you propose to do with those people who cannot lead? Are they screwed? Do they only deserve a life of poverty and want, or are they our fellow citizens that deserve a decent life too?

Ethanol subsidies? Ok... that is one of MANY ways our Government panders to the wealthy... but some of those people are not wealthy... they are mom and pop farmers trying to compete against full scale agribusiness. How about we end subsidies for Agribusiness, but keep them for family farms?

I can preach to you about the needs of the disabled. I have worked in the field since Reagan was in office and I have seen our resources dwindle and the calls for privatization rise. I have also seen the results of the trend. Private sector "Group Homes" are now what State Institutions Used to be in the 70's. They are staffed by minimum wage, unskilled people doing a job that requires much more training than these "for profit" entities are willing to provide. Plus, who gives a shit if you lose a minimum wage job? Lose a state job with benefits... that's a different story. You are going to tow the line a hell of a lot better.

Most of our Homeless problem is mentally ill people with no place to go. Reagan nearly killed Federal Funding to Mental Health Facilities... that put them on the street.

I am very sorry about your sister. But just because your sister is disabled does not make you an expert on what is happening around you.

Haha Thankfully I hadn't even had a chance to get to the ignore feature yet. Sounds like reading comprehension may in fact be in order if you were confused who you were talking too. Anyways onto the topic.

I think I was clear but if not let me reiterate my position. I'm against "ALL" corporate welfare. The free market should determine what is successful and what isn't.
As far as those that can't lead there are temporary safety nets available to them to help them until they rebound. ie food stamps, unemployment checks, Financial aid for families with children, etc. Other than that its not the govts job to find them employment.

I was a ward of the state from the age of 7 and I basically grew up in the system you work in. And as I clearly stated I have no problem with programs for those that can't help themselves. As far as funding goes, its kinda hard to hope for more when Obama spent everything we had and then some on such life changing programs as cash for clunkers and 2 billion for Egypt to help create jobs. Your party has had control of the purse strings for quite some time so to blame the right for lack of funding when you had control of the bank account for so long is disengiuness at best.
It was my step-daughter with CP (reading comprehension?)

 

[NYcarbineer]

The current unemployment rate in the U.S. for someone with a only a H.S. diploma is 9.5%

The current unemployment rate for someone with at least a bachelor's degree is 4.5%.

And yet, do Republicans/conservatives want to invest in Education?

Generally...

...No.

Since you didn't give any perspective to your stats I will for you. Although they prove your point kinda silly and mute.

Unemployment rate for college grads is highest since 1970 - USATODAY.com

Yet, the educated may now be bearing the brunt of a sluggish recovery. The jobless rate for high school graduates improved from 10.1% in October and is down from 10.9% in June. Maki partly credits a robust turnaround for restaurants, which added 34,000 jobs the past two months. And manufacturers added 134,000 from January to May.
At the same time, unemployment in the "management, business and financial" category leapt to 5.5% in November from 4.3% in September and is the highest on records back to 2000. Those figures are not seasonally adjusted. The broad category includes accountants and managers in human resources and food services. Many are occupations that require a college education.
Jorge Perez, a senior vice president for Manpower, says employers have cut layers of managers and melded jobs, reducing the need to hire. And, he says, some unemployed computer workers, for example, lack skills for the fast-changing field.
Harry Griendling, CEO of DoubleStar, a human resources consultant, cites employers' tendency to trim staff and enlist contractors for projects, partly due to uncertainty about taxes and health care reform. Many, he says, are more likely to make such cuts toward year's end as they plan annual budgets.

So what?

How does alter the simplest fact that the more education you have the more employable you are?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'll stop using the ATM if he stops using his Teleprompter. Him and his Teleprompter are far more to blame for high Unemployment than ATM's are.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

And these are the Twits running our country. Scary stuff for sure. Has Timothy Geithner figured out how to file his Taxes properly yet? Yea it's all the Machines' fault. Yikes!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The current unemployment rate in the U.S. for someone with a only a H.S. diploma is 9.5%

The current unemployment rate for someone with at least a bachelor's degree is 4.5%.

And yet, do Republicans/conservatives want to invest in Education?

Generally...

...No.

Since you didn't give any perspective to your stats I will for you. Although they prove your point kinda silly and mute.

Unemployment rate for college grads is highest since 1970 - USATODAY.com

Yet, the educated may now be bearing the brunt of a sluggish recovery. The jobless rate for high school graduates improved from 10.1% in October and is down from 10.9% in June. Maki partly credits a robust turnaround for restaurants, which added 34,000 jobs the past two months. And manufacturers added 134,000 from January to May.
At the same time, unemployment in the "management, business and financial" category leapt to 5.5% in November from 4.3% in September and is the highest on records back to 2000. Those figures are not seasonally adjusted. The broad category includes accountants and managers in human resources and food services. Many are occupations that require a college education.
Jorge Perez, a senior vice president for Manpower, says employers have cut layers of managers and melded jobs, reducing the need to hire. And, he says, some unemployed computer workers, for example, lack skills for the fast-changing field.
Harry Griendling, CEO of DoubleStar, a human resources consultant, cites employers' tendency to trim staff and enlist contractors for projects, partly due to uncertainty about taxes and health care reform. Many, he says, are more likely to make such cuts toward year's end as they plan annual budgets.

So what?

How does alter the simplest fact that the more education you have the more employable you are?

According to the study the college graduates are being impacted the worst.

Besides did you need a news story to tell you education was important? Duh, I've been saying that through this entire thread. Welcome to the party albeit a little late.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Funny how the MSM always ignores stupid things Democrats say. Imagine if the Palin had said this? The CNN & MSNBC nutters would be obsessing over it for years. Yup it's all the machines' fault. WOW!.