No jobs? Why so many channels?

[August1991]

When people tell me that China is eliminating industrial jobs in Canada (and China will take over), I first ask about Japan. (About 20 years ago, Americans were terrified of a Japanese takeover.)

A better response is: why are there so many cable channels, or so much youtube content?

The best response is: Imagine a computer capable of creating content. (If such a computer existed, would we suffer from unemployment?)

Edited December 9, 2013 by August1991

[Bonam]

When people tell me that China is eliminating industrial jobs in Canada (and China will take over), I first ask about Japan. (About 20 years ago, Americans were terrified of a Japanese takeover.)

Fears are usually overhyped/overblown, but often real nonetheless. Japan didn't take anything over, but it did compete heavily in the automobile and computer industries with American companies who lost significant market share as a result, reducing US employment in these sectors. Certainly the same is true with China and manufacturing, many jobs have been lost and some will continue to be lost, but it's not a takeover and won't result in economic collapse.

A better response is: why are there so many cable channels, or so much youtube content?

There's a lot of cable channels because cable is now digital and there's no real limit on how many channels there can be, therefore the cost of adding a new niche channel is very low, and so networks do it if they think it might appeal to anyone. There's a lot of youtube content because there's a lot of bored people out there who post videos of their cats doing something moderately amusing to youtube.

The best response is: Imagine a computer capable to create content. Would we suffer from unemployment?

Many people do face unemployment when their jobs are made obsolete through automation. Nonetheless, automation brings with it associated technological progress which has a significant net benefit to society, which is not necessarily true of outsourcing, which simply replaces a set of workers in one country with workers in another.

[BC_chick]

When people tell me that China is eliminating industrial jobs in Canada (and China will take over), I first ask about Japan. (About 20 years ago, Americans were terrified of a Japanese takeover.)A better response is: why are there so many cable channels, or so much youtube content?The best response is: Imagine a computer capable of creating content. (If such a computer existed, would we suffer from unemployment?)

Heartland/hinterland theory.

[Guest Derek L]

Fears are usually overhyped/overblown, but often real nonetheless. Japan didn't take anything over, but it did compete heavily in the automobile and computer industries with American companies who lost significant market share as a result, reducing US employment in these sectors. Certainly the same is true with China and manufacturing, many jobs have been lost and some will continue to be lost, but it's not a takeover and won't result in economic collapse.

Agreed...and another parallel between then and now, back then (80s) the Japanese were also the largest holder of US debt……

[August1991]

There's a lot of cable channels because cable is now digital and there's no real limit on how many channels there can be...

But someone has to produce that content.

Bonam, in the past, farmers produced milk. Nowadays, their grandchildren produce comedy channels - and serve coffee.

===

Whatever Americans and other rich (Western Leftist) people may think, most poor people in the world in general are far better off now than 60 years ago.

So, unless you're a member of the US Democrat Party, who cares whether the poor in America get less than the American rich?

As a planet, inequality is smaller today than in 1950.

Edited December 14, 2013 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

But someone has to produce that content.

Bonam, in the past, farmers produced milk. Nowadays, their grandchildren produce comedy channels - and serve coffee.

The robots are coming. They will engage in an economic war with humans, and humans will - as with every economic conflict - need to specialize in what they're better at.

There is no consensus that robots will ever be able to beat humans at being human, eg. writing a song, a play, a joke, making a painting, giving a kind word, or listening with an open heart.

So those jobs will be the last to go.

Whatever Americans and other rich (Western Leftist) people may think, most poor people in the world in general are far better off now than 60 years ago.

Agreed.

So, unless you're a member of the US Democrat Party, who cares whether the poor in America get less than the American rich?

Well, the poor do care as long as there is an identity of people with money being superior, rather than just holy. The peasants of middle aged England didn't aspire to be royalty because there was no English myth of mobility, as there is in England.

If you can kill that and make people happy to be whatever they are, then it's conceivable to me that the new peasant class will be stable as long as they meet the basics of living. ( They still don't, though. )

As a planet, inequality is smaller today than in 1950.

I think I read this somewhere but since you're quoting a stat I'd really like to see the cite. I promise to bookmark it.

[eyeball]

If you can kill that and make people happy to be whatever they are, then it's conceivable to me that the new peasant class will be stable as long as they meet the basics of living. ( They still don't, though.)

The thing you really have to kill is the moral imperative that individuals must produce and carry their own weight. If the usual suspects refuse to let this go (and they won't) there will be a revolution.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing you really have to kill is the moral imperative that individuals must produce and carry their own weight. If the usual suspects refuse to let this go (and they won't) there will be a revolution.

I'm feeling you on this one. Maybe we can hope that 'produce' will mean something different. It already does, as there are people 'employed' in playing video games all day to earn trinkets to sell to richer gamers.

[eyeball]

We can't afford to just hope, we have to actually do something towards that end.

I'd bring volunteerism into the paid work force for starters. Pay them with money that we print at our mint.

[kimmy]

We in the first world have been freed from manual labor and are now free to produce YouTube videos and cable TV shows? Is that what I'm reading? How much money are you making from your YouTube channel, August?

It's great that people in India and China are much better off than they used to be. However, that's of little comfort to young people in North America. The the cost of a home or an education has risen dramatically compared to income. Stuff that our parents could pay for with relative ease now comes at the cost of massive personal debt. And this at a time when massive public debt is leading to the erosion of public infrastructure and public services.

It's great that people in India and China are doing better. I'm super happy for them, and I don't begrudge them the better standard of living they've achieved. However, a central mantra of the Heroic Job Creator rhetoric has been that "the creation of wealth isn't a zero sum game". So why does this newfound standard of living seem to come at the expense of people here in North America? If "a rising tide raises all boats", when is our boat going to start rising instead of slowly taking on water?

-k

[Michael Hardner]

I'd bring volunteerism into the paid work force for starters. Pay them with money that we print at our mint.

This is also a great idea.

[Michael Hardner]

So why does this newfound standard of living seem to come at the expense of people here in North America?

North America is doing better on the whole but the change means that old negotiations between workers & capitalists are gone and new ones have to be made. Look on the bright side, though, this will build character for the youth. Yes, I'm being cynical.

[Bonam]

It's great that people in India and China are doing better. I'm super happy for them, and I don't begrudge them the better standard of living they've achieved. However, a central mantra of the Heroic Job Creator rhetoric has been that "the creation of wealth isn't a zero sum game". So why does this newfound standard of living seem to come at the expense of people here in North America?

Because of our embrace of unrestricted globalization. Why pay someone in North America $20/hour when you can pay someone in Bangladesh $1/hour instead?

If "a rising tide raises all boats", when is our boat going to start rising instead of slowly taking on water?

It will start rising again after the majority of developing nations and the third world have first caught up to close to where we are now. Another 20ish years or so.

[eyeball]

Another 20ish years?

[Michael Hardner]

It will start rising again after the majority of developing nations and the third world have first caught up to close to where we are now. Another 20ish years or so.

The tide has already started to reverse. The earliest jobs to go offshore were tech jobs, and I believe it was a Gartner report that I linked to here that declared tech offshoring dead as a trend. A friend of mine quoted salaries for top tech jobs in Bangalore - which I think he put at over 50% of what I would have expected the jobs here to pay.

Meanwhile, the demand for tech is increasing globally.

The next task in front of us is to consolidate our collective social and environmental goals in earnest.

[Bonam]

The tide has already started to reverse. The earliest jobs to go offshore were tech jobs, and I believe it was a Gartner report that I linked to here that declared tech offshoring dead as a trend. A friend of mine quoted salaries for top tech jobs in Bangalore - which I think he put at over 50% of what I would have expected the jobs here to pay.

Meanwhile, the demand for tech is increasing globally.

Yep, which is why I said about 20 years. Keep in mind there's a lot of jobs out there besides tech.

The next task in front of us is to consolidate our collective social and environmental goals in earnest.

Hmm?

[eyeball]

No amount of unpaid volunteers will ever be enough to meet our social and environmental needs.

In the meantime...

TD came up with the $50-billion figure by calculating the estimated 2.1 billion hours worked at average rate of $24 per hour. The data is based on the 2010 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, from Statistics Canada .

The best way to consolidate our social and environmental needs is to encompass them within our economic system, that could be a snap, except for the amorality of actually paying volunteers or using our mint to print the money needed to pay them. Oh the humanity, apparently. Maybe we could just raise taxes on 'real' workers to meet the need, what do you think?

OTOH we could just continue to deny that any tangible needs exist, like imagining the environment is external to our economy and exists outside it in sub-space or something but I don't think that's going to last us another 20 years. Neither will chasing the value of a worker's time to the bottom.

Edited December 14, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

It's great that people in India and China are much better off than they used to be. However, that's of little comfort to young people in North America. The the cost of a home or an education has risen dramatically compared to income. Stuff that our parents could pay for with relative ease now comes at the cost of massive personal debt. And this at a time when massive public debt is leading to the erosion of public infrastructure and public services.

I think that’s as much a partial “myth” as old farts like me harkening back to the “good old days”……..Some things were certainly relatively cheaper back then, but of course, we had a lot less things, coupled with “lower expectations” of the things we did have compared to now….

I’m certain I’m not the only “Baby-Boomer” that grew up sleeping on bunk-beds, fighting over a single bathroom, having to actually go to a library and bring home a stack of books to complete a book report and was only saved from hand-me-downs by being the eldest……..

Sure my parents were able to afford a house, but of course houses back then were typically of the same square footage of a two bedroom condo or townhouse today……..our household of 6 had a car, but of course back then a “luxury car” had a AM radio, seatbelts and if you were lucky ashtrays and a lighter in the back……We had a telephone in the kitchen, but of course it didn’t cost $800 and have more computing power then the Apollo spacecraft……Also had a TV with a selector knob that gave you 12 channels, whether you needed them or not…….and we even got to go to Disneyland after my mom got a part time job at Safeway and my father would work over time on weekends and holidays and this allowed them to save-up (that means paying for something with money you have and not putting it on credit) for two years……..etc etc…….

The only thing relatively easy “back then” was we had less stuff to “pay-for”…….

I’ve no doubt that things are financially tough for those in their 20s and 30s today, but I don’t know of a time when things were “easy” for those in their 20s and 30s………Of course those in their 20s and 30s can whinge about it over the internet today……we of course didn’t have no internets back in the “good ole days”….

[bush_cheney2004]

I think that’s as much a partial “myth” as old farts like me harkening back to the “good old days”……..Some things were certainly relatively cheaper back then, but of course, we had a lot less things, coupled with “lower expectations” of the things we did have compared to now….

Right on....I certainly don't feel sorry for these spoiled brats who expect that education should be cheap/free and they should be able to buy a home right out of school. Most have no idea what it was like generations ago and have delusions of immediate gratification.

[kimmy]

The cost of homes has risen far faster than income during my lifetime. College tuitions have risen even faster than housing prices. Those are the facts, and they won't change regardless of how much you people try and dismiss or dodge the issue with crappy arguments like "kids feel so entitled these days" or "yeah well when I was a kid we slept on a bunk bed in a single room and we didn't have iPods".

I can only assume you're queuing up more of The Worst Generation's favorite lines, like "when I was your age, I didn't have no college education, I started in the mail room and worked my way up to Vice President in charge of Employee Benefits for the Mid West region" and "I don't understand what the big deal with student loans is, when I was in college I paid my tuition by getting a summer job. Why don't kids these days just get summer jobs?"

My contributions to CPP aren't paying for my future security, they're paying for yours. I'll never see a cent of it; it's wasted money for me. The people who'll be paying into CPP by the time I'm ready to retire aren't even born yet, and they're apparently going to be earning a living making YouTube videos, so the best I can hope for from CPP is cat-food coupons once I reach 87. You people have your employer pension plans plus CPP, all I've got is what I can sock away right now.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

You people have your employer pension plans plus CPP, all I've got is what I can sock away right now.

No, actually old geezers like me have much more, including SAVINGS (ever heard of that?), paid off home equity, and defined contribution plans with employer match. Learn how to play the game, and play it well.

[kimmy]

No, actually old geezers like me have much more, including SAVINGS (ever heard of that?),

I'd be able to save my money a lot faster if I wasn't paying for Derek's retirement. Saving is a lot easier for people who didn't need massive student loans to get an education, and lifetime mortgages to afford homes.

paid off home equity,

Yeah, it was probably pretty nice to own property during the huge price growth of the past couple of decades. But that's a ponzi scheme that depends on the next generation of home buyers. As a growing number of Boomers are discovering, Millennials are pretty broke and can't afford homes. Student loan debt and crappy job prospects for young people make it far from a sure thing. I've been seeing a plethora of articles over the past year lamenting that those darned broke-ass Millennials are making it hard for Boomers to down-size.

and defined contribution plans with employer match.

Going the way of the Dodo.

Learn how to play the game, and play it well.

I don't think that you old-people grasp how much the game has changed. Not in the slightest.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd be able to save my money a lot faster if I wasn't paying for Derek's retirement. Saving is a lot easier for people who didn't need massive student loans to get an education, and lifetime mortgages to afford homes.

You're paying for a lot more than that (e.g. "free healthcare"). Saving is easier by choosing affordable post secondary education options. Buying a home comes after the rent or buy numbers pivot in one's favor.

Yeah, it was probably pretty nice to own property during the huge price growth of the past couple of decades. But that's a ponzi scheme that depends on the next generation of home buyers. As a growing number of Boomers are discovering, Millennials are pretty broke and can't afford homes. Student loan debt and crappy job prospects for young people make it far from a sure thing. I've been seeing a plethora of articles over the past year lamenting that those darned broke-ass Millennials are making it hard for Boomers to down-size.

See....you are still seeing with eyes bigger than your wallet. My home is not a piggy bank, it is a place to live. That it has some equity is only a bonus. If you want to gamble, go to 'Vegas.

I don't think that you old-people grasp how much the game has changed. Not in the slightest.

Ya think ? Can't we tell by the 20 and 30 somethings still living at home in our basements ? Times were far tougher in the '70's and interest rates were a lot higher. And the reason I know that it is mostly spoiled whining is because some young folk are doing quite well, as they know how to leave their deadbeat peers behind, and out compete the "slackers". Yes...I said it..."slackers".

[kimmy]

You're paying for a lot more than that (e.g. "free healthcare"). Saving is easier by choosing affordable post secondary education options.

Paying for universal healthcare is a discussion that we've had in Canada.

Having the brokest generation in recent history paying for luxurious retirements for the richest generation in human history is not a discussion we have had in Canada. But it's a discussion we ought to have.

Buying a home comes after the rent or buy numbers pivot in one's favor.

See....you are still seeing with eyes bigger than your wallet. My home is not a piggy bank, it is a place to live. That it has some equity is only a bonus. If you want to gamble, go to 'Vegas.

I've done just that. I think that myself and former member MSJ discussed the rent vs buy metric here on this message board during the time I was deciding to buy, in fact.

And likewise, I'm not operating the assumption that I will be able to "cash out" on the back of some future generation when I decide to downsize. I won't be downsizing; my 1br apartment is about as downsized as can be, short of moving into a travel trailer, car, or garbage can. Hopefully it doesn't come down to that.

But once again, when my parents bought their first home 30 years agi they got a 3br home with a big yard in the middle of a fast growing city on a mortgage that could be paid off in under 10 years (while supporting a family of 4 on a single income). Today that's completely unrealistic. That would be science fiction if it happened today.

Ya think ? Can't we tell by the 20 and 30 somethings still living at home in our basements ?

I think the fact that you old-people don't understand why 20 somethings are still living in your basements speaks volumes.

Times were far tougher in the '70's and interest rates were a lot higher.

The first claim is BS, and the second is a very strange metric of whether times are tough, coming from somebody who's mocking the current generation's borrowing.

And the reason I know that it is mostly spoiled whining is because some young folk are doing quite well, as they know how to leave their deadbeat peers behind, and out compete the "slackers". Yes...I said it..."slackers".

Sure, lots of people are still doing well. Lots aren't.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Paying for universal healthcare is a discussion that we've had in Canada.

Having the brokest generation in recent history paying for luxurious retirements for the richest generation in human history is not a discussion we have had in Canada. But it's a discussion we ought to have.

But it wasn't a discussion your generation participated in. Why the difference compared to CPP ?

I've done just that. I think that myself and former member MSJ discussed the rent vs buy metric here on this message board during the time I was deciding to buy, in fact.

And likewise, I'm not operating the assumption that I will be able to "cash out" on the back of some future generation when I decide to downsize. I won't be downsizing; my 1br apartment is about as downsized as can be, short of moving into a travel trailer, car, or garbage can. Hopefully it doesn't come down to that.

It's just the natural outcome and other side of the debt curb. You would be amazed at what happens to cash flow without any debt, interest payments, or mortgage. The money just piles up like snow !

But once again, when my parents bought their first home 30 years agi they got a 3br home with a big yard in the middle of a fast growing city on a mortgage that could be paid off in under 10 years (while supporting a family of 4 on a single income). Today that's completely unrealistic. That would be science fiction if it happened today.

Depends on where you buy. Lots of inexpensive properties in Detroit....and soon to be in some southern Ontario cities. If I based decisions or forecasts based on what my parents had, I would be in a trailer park.

I think the fact that you old-people don't understand why 20 somethings are still living in your basements speaks volumes.

Oh we understand alright....just disagree about why they can't get it together. Perhaps comparisons to their parents' circumstances is part of the problem. Plus I am of the opinion that many middle and upper class kids never learned how to live/be poor.

The first claim is BS, and the second is a very strange metric of whether times are tough, coming from somebody who's mocking the current generation's borrowing.

Sure, lots of people are still doing well. Lots aren't.

My "BS" doesn't really matter....some young people have figured it out, and don't spend their time whining with the slackers at Occupy Protests. Everybody doesn't win in this game, but that doesn't mean any one individual has to lose. Don't be a victim.