Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
In other words, there was a significant reduction in hunger levels thanks to Food Stamps and a reduction in the amount of the elderly poor thanks to increases in Social Security benefits for the elderly poor in the 1960s. From the article above: "After adjusting for inflation, Congress raised Social Security’s average monthly benefits by about 50 percent between 1965 and 1973. These increases aroused little organized opposition, partly because workers who had not yet retired expected that making the system more generous today would benefit them too once they reached retirement age. In addition, many of the elderly poor were relying on their middle-aged children to make ends meet in 1964. Every increase in Social Security benefits reduced the economic burden on those children, many of whom were far from affluent.
Higher real benefits, combined with increases in the proportion of surviving retirees who had worked in covered employment long enough to qualify for full benefits, cut the poverty rate among the elderly from 30 percent in 1964 to 15 percent in 1974. By 1984 the official poverty rate was the same among the elderly as among the non-elderly. Today the poverty rate among the elderly is only two thirds that among eighteen- to sixty-four-year-olds and half that among children. Raising Social Security benefits was, in short,the simplest, least controversial, and most effective antipoverty program of the past half-century."
>> overarching view on this matter is that the poverty level in the USA has been mostly static since President Johnson's War on Poverty in the mid-1960s. ... The political solutions have mostly failed.
Wow, you really don't keep up, do you? 50 years of stasis, seriously? Where you been.
The poverty statistic that I recalled was one based singularly on income. It did not incorporate supplemental government programs like food stamps when calculating the number. Yes, the total percentage of folks classified as in poverty has decreased over 50 years, but the percentage drop has been modest at best. Given the magnitudes of the programs, I rate them as a failure since poverty is still a problem.
The various programs have changed the sub-group distribution of poverty. The percentage of senior citizens in poverty has been dramatically reduced, but other younger group poverty levels have increased. The overall results have been uneven and disappointing.
Government programs almost always produce some positive outcomes. Spending does that. The real issue is the effectiveness, the efficiency of the programs. Now that's a horse of a different color. The more local the control, the higher likelihood of success and efficiency. Communist systems learned this lesson the hard way.
In these exchanges, there is no need for vituperative posts. A friendly exchange is always appreciated and usually more productive. You guys seem angry.
Hi, MJG -- Nah...they're not angry. They all seem okay...they just like to argue. Whenever I've taken something they have said a little personally, they have always (kinda) apologized. I really doubt that anyone's political persuasions have been changed by their articles and statistics, but they are just venting and keeping their minds sharp! Nothing wrong with that.
MJG - here's where it seems you're not being entirely forthright. You rate government programs a failure by using a metric (presumably the Census Bureau poverty statistics) that explicitly excludes major components of those programs. (Not to mention using subjective terms like modest, rather than posting, or at least citing, hard numbers.)
As it turns out, the Census Bureau also publishes statistics that do incorporate these programs. They're called the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
You could make an even more forceful statement about the ineffectiveness of government programs - that not only has the War on Poverty not improved the lot of the young, it hasn't even been effective at the general population level - in 2010 poverty approached its highest level since the War on Poverty began.
But to do so, you would need to add all sorts of qualifications - that this didn't include the effects of the government programs, that there was a recession (with commensurate loss of jobs and health coverage), etc. As I recall, the economy was booming in the baseline year of 1965.
You noted:"As I recall, the economy was booming in the baseline year of 1965."
A direct note about this and an area of business relative to Michigan and consumer demand/consumption on a broader U.S. scale during the mid-1960's.
If a young man/woman without training or other special jobs skills, no felonies and nominally in good health placed a job application for "blue collar/line work" at the big 3 auto companies in 1965 and beyond for several years, the following scenario was common: ---If age 18, immediate hire for the current or next shift available ---If younger than 18 upon application, return to the facility where you seek employment and either wait until midnight + 1 minute to begin work on a night shift and/or return the very next morning to start on a daytime work shift.
Shift work for most (GM) at this time consisted of two daily shifts: 6am-6pm and 6pm-6am, 7 days a week. Even with the $3.08 hourly rate at the time, shift premiums of 10% were in place, as the shifts and times were outside of normal work periods. Add the benefits at the time and well, these unskilled "labors" were making big money. A top of the line auto at the time, with every option, was genrally less than $3,000 new and most of the standard autos were about $2,000.
This was a very common situation, with which; I have direct experience.
MJG, Pointing out that you do not really know what you are talking about a fair amount of the time, however much you say you read and give links and go on at such length, and pointing out in this case that you do not keep up, is hardly vituperative when you post as much as you do. You want to have it both ways, misleading with the airiest of assertions ('Communism'...) and/or speaking in ignorance, and then not get called on it? Sorry.
L5bee, Articles and stats change my mind and modulate my thinking all the time. I doubt that I'm alone. Indeed, it seems (to take just one example) that for a great many people the understanding of gov debts and deficits, how they matter chiefly (not to say only) as a percentage of GDP, has been clarified and become more sophisticated over the last 5-10 years.
Both the New York Times and New York Review of Books' articles I cited provide ample evidence that the War on Poverty has been successful at reducing the absolute poverty level significantly, by as much as 75% according to the Harvard professor who wrote the NYROB article. But the war has done nothing to reduce inequality levels, i.e., relative poverty. A larger question I think both Democrats and Republicans fail to address is the solution to poverty/inequality is always framed in the terms of increasing GDP and employment levels. This does not address the fundamental economic and environmental problem that technology poses to every industrialized society. With each productivity increase from every advance in technology, less labor is needed to produce the same amount of goods. In order to address this increase in capacity we ask the populace to consume more so that some form of full employment can be maintained. But the automation from robots, software algorithms and the Internet has decreased the need for labor faster than our consumption levels can increase.
And this problem is only accelerating. By one estimate nearly half of all U.S. jobs will be replaced by technology in the next twenty years: nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/apr/02/how-robots-algorithms-are-taking-over/ So the solution to this problem is not to get more people working but to actually get some of the existing people out of the labor force so there will be less competition for the remaining jobs. Therefore the idea that the Social Security age should be raised so that elderly people will work longer seems a grievous mistake. Elderly people should actually work shorter periods and retire earlier so that young people can have the few remaining decent jobs. Even if we could somehow pump up consumption levels dramatically to meet the excess capacity created by improving technology, this would have dramatically negative consequences. For one U.S. consumption levels, which are significantly higher than any other nation, are the primary reason we produce more carbon emissions per capita than any other nation, exacerbating the climate change we are facing. Two, in order to increase consumption we have constantly relied on increasing levels of debt in every sector of society--personal, corporate and government. That debt to stimulate the economy could one day come back to bite us as many on this board are well aware.
Anger can be therapeutic - and sometimes arises for good reason.
At various times in the past I've been dubbed by one here as: "angry", "obsessive", or harboring some ulterior "agenda." That's a great way to throw cold water on a discussion.
And those kinds of attempts to play the role of "victim" do in fact sometimes make me angry.
@hank- I feel that you must be harboring some ulterior agenda in denying that you are angry and obsessive. What's wrong with cold water? Also your posts are way too short. And you don't have any links hardly. Other than that, your posts are pretty good sometimes, even if they frequently fail to cite sufficiently obscure hooga-booga. That is why you are among the 80% who only contribute 20%, and even that is only on a good day.
I am infrequently flabbergasted and just a little bewildered when mean spirited exchanges occur on the MFO Board. MFO is dedicated and designed to explore mutual fund investment initiatives, some controversial, which are best understood and examined in an emotionally neutral environment. I honor that purpose.
Based on some of your recent posts, it appears we share a trust in statistical data and analyses to improve the odds of making better informed investment decisions. My primary goal in most of my MFO submittals center on enhancing statistical numeracy among our Board participants. Statistical innumeracy is a major shortfall among investors.
I’m sure we would interpret much of the statistical data in a similar way. I’m equally sure that our interpretations diverge on some occasions. That’s the way of the marketplace.
Either way, you and I are never always right or always wrong. Somehow, you have judged that I “do not know what (I’m) talking about a fair amount of time”. That’s an assessment made devoid of context, documentation, and/or specific examples. It is a judgment that is totally gratuitous.
Also you join the chorus and criticize my posts because they are typically heavily referenced and too lengthy. I try very hard to establish the credibility of the positions I advocate. I try not to make grand assertions without some attempt at documentation. I never claim special training or soothsayer skills in this arena. All this demands time and space. The simple solution is to ignore my posts if they bore you.
For the record, I am not as frequent a site visitor or poster as you might think. Perhaps the assertiveness, the seriousness, and the possible impact of my posts have caused you some false signals on this subject.
Since its inception, I have visited MFO slightly more than one thousand times, and have contributed discussions and comments a major fraction of those times. I hate to waste an opportunity.
You joined over a year later, yet visited the site more than twice as often as I have, and posted a total of almost 1200 times. Our posting records are similar, but you have the frequency edge, especially given your shorter participation time. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
It is unfair to judge me uninformed only when our assessments have an occasional parting of the ways. Civilized, unemotional, nonjudgmental exchanges are likely to be more productive and more likely to promote a beneficial reevaluation of positions than arbitrary, vituperous, personal attacks.
There is a disagreement on just about every market trade. We have all experienced both winning and losing trades. A bad outcome doesn’t translate into stupidity just like a positive outcome doesn’t convert into brilliance. Extremes by definition are rare.
Investing is serious stuff, and I give it the respect it deserves on this fine website. Please do the same.
Nah, I love long posts that are on point with substantiation, and I believe have not taken shots at you when you achieve that. I do sense you like to hear yourself go on, though, and many here have commented on that tendency, and so I mention it only because it is unusual in combination with the drawing of wrong conclusions. msf and others have pointed you toward corrections of erroneous assertions and misunderstandings of data, in more than one area. Such evidentiary matters can be understood in righter and wronger ways, not so much as being simple issues of opinion. And talking about this sort of thing is not disrespectful, seems to me.
As for our histories, I have no idea and don't care. I started reading and using FA from the getgo, in the later 1990s, and exchanged email with Weitz many times, and have similarly been reading here from whenever it started (and have done the same irregular and ad-hoc exchanges with DS), regardless of when I 'signed up.'
I don't remember right off the top of my head the last round of assertions you made at length with other posters correcting you factually and interpretatively. This one on poverty and gov programs speaks for itself. Life is too short for me to satisfy your wish to give a history of your misunderstandings. I do not think calling you out, by anyone here, dishonors any purpose, and do not concur in your perception of vituperation.
@mjg: You certainly seem to incur more than a normal number of "arbitrary, vituperous, personal attacks", and these seem to be steadily increasing in frequency from different sources. Now, if you hold true to style, you will no doubt attempt to shift the focus of this post by questioning my use of the term "normal", and undoubtedly provide numerous statistically oriented references to prove that my use of the word is unsubstantiated and meaningless.
That changes nothing. There may just be a reason that you incur these "attacks", and you might profit from a bit of introspection regarding the barely suppressed tone of superiority in much of your commentary. You're fond of claiming that others "misrepresent your posts". I suggest that your posts are quite representative of themselves. Maybe you have chosen the wrong type of forum for your "style"... perhaps something less plebeian may be in order.
@davidmoran, MJG, Old_Joe: Cyberbulling will not be tolerated on the MFO Discussion Board. If this continues all three of you will be sent to the woodshed. If that doesn't work, we have other methods. Regards, Ted
Thank you for your stimulating and thought provoking last posting. I have not given the technology/job interaction matter any serious thinking time until your well constructed post. The recent widening gap between technology advances and job destruction, or at least as a minimum, job displacement, escaped my attention completely. Thanks for the alert.
I was motivated to explore some resources on the Web by your post. Here is an excellent recent article from an MIT professor, David Rotman, that puts the relevant issues in some historical context. Here is the Link:
The trends look dangerous, but recovery is the historical record. The jury is still out on this current gap. The number of comments to the article is impressive by itself. Enjoy.
Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Krugman discussing "Globalization, Technological Change, and Inequality", or as the moderator described it: "Are the robots eating our jobs?"
Investing is serious stuff, and I give it the respect it deserves on this fine website. Please do the same.
Best Wishes.
I'd suggest you consider a few things in your posts:
- attention spans are decreasing - long posts don't resonate with people - consider the volume of what you write and the few people that read them - there are curmudgeons here - people sometimes post because they what to make a point, even if it doesn't relate to yours.
"The recent widening gap between technology advances and job destruction, or at least as a minimum, job displacement, escaped my attention completely."
@mjg: Really? It's certainly been discussed and explored here on MFO on many occasions. The MIT paper which you have belatedly discovered (your link above) and classify as "recent" is itself over two years old. That classification is in fact a good example of the definitive leeway which you allow yourself, but loudly criticize in everyone else.
That MIT paper, by the way, notes that there has been"arguing for the last year and a half that impressive advances in computer technology—from improved industrial robotics to automated translation services—are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last 10 to 15 years." So lets add all of that up: Um, MIT paper, 2 yrs old. Referred argument, 1.5 additional years. Period covered by that argument, 10 to 15 years (lets just say 12). So, MJG, it would seem that you not only missed the "recent widening gap between technology advances and job destruction", but also the not-so-recent 15 or so years. Quite a miss, I'd say.
I would expect anyone presumably capable of relevant commentary on the current US macro economic and job structure to have given this factor major consideration. It's hardly been a well-kept secret, after all.
@davidrmoran: By far the best discussion of the TPP that I've yet seen. It's worth reprinting the conclusion:
Conclusion
"Although TPP often referred to as a trade agreement, the TransPacific Partnership is about much more than just trade. A number of the provisions that would likely appear in a final agreement impact foreign direct investment both directly and indirectly. The resulting expansion of FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] will bring many important benefits for consumers, firms, and – yes! – workers in the US.
The globalisation of foreign direct investment – both inward and outward – strengthens and improves the job base in the US domestic economy. Certainly, some jobs will be lost and others will be created in the process of global expansion. But the net effect is clearly positive, with the largest growth in high value added R&D intensive sectors. If members of Congress care about the creation of good jobs in the US, then they should get behind TPA and TPP."
Must be some very interesting conversations around your family's holiday dinner table!
Back when we were all in college, a half-century ago, yeah, but we are all scattered and do not see one another regularly anymore. He sends me papers to edit, which I do though they need little, and we discuss economics, though I got nothing to contribute that he has not read. He has an interesting career studying and teaching F D I, it is true.
We've heard this story before. This was written by the Heritage Foundation in November of 1993, right before NAFTA went into affect in January of 1994:heritage.org/research/reports/1993/11/em371-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement Somehow these free trade agreements never quite deliver for the American worker like the pundits pushing for them promise they will.
"Somehow these free trade agreements never quite deliver for the American worker like the pundits pushing for them promise they will."
Well, there's workers and then there's workers... note the clause "with the largest growth in high value added R&D intensive sectors". Admittedly, that's not going to make a dent in the "lower value" job sectors, and that's where most of the hurt is now coming from. But at least it's something, and I don't think at this point the problems for the "lower value" job sectors are so much the transfer of jobs to other economies (I think that that damage has pretty well been done by now) as the complete elimination of those jobs by technology and robotics.
Well, I suppose your most recent diatribe directed at me means that you have once again regressed to your unidirectional feud against me. You certainly hold a grudge that I don’t share.
As in many past instances, your recent assertions concerning my post both distorts and misrepresents my purposes and statements. You erect a false straw-man that is easily burned. That is an unworthy, corrupt tactic that is mostly reserved for the political arena. Your hostile posts fairly document your character.
I have contributed almost 1000 entries to the MFO Board. Reviewing all those submittals, I never claimed any special economic trend insights, never claimed any special market timing acumen, never recommended any specific stock or mutual fund selections, and especially, never advised any MFO members to follow any strategies or tactics that I referenced or described.
I have never claimed any formal economic training or understanding. I am not a professional economist or a financial advisor. I have explicitly denied such status on numerous occasions.
My formal education and practical work experience are all in the engineering disciplines. I often acknowledged that I am an amateur investor albeit a very experienced one. As such I have hesitated and frequently refused to reveal any of my specific portfolio positions. I don’t wish to contaminate other investor’s decision making with my prejudices and biases. I firmly believe that every investor should choose his own poison for his own purposes.
Note that the MIT referenced work is controversial. Data interpretations differ. The MIT analysis is not universally accepted by the economic community, The reported “gap” might well close again as it has historically. New technology always causes displacements. Time gap adjustments have varied in the past.
Sorry if you are disturbed by the fact that “I missed” this employment gap. As a group, economists have an earned reputation for missing turning points. So my failure on this missed observation really should not surprise or disappoint anyone. And I’m not even a professional economist.
You are in error when you ascribe to me any prescience and powers that I do not have or ever claimed to have. I consider myself just one of the MFO troopers who simply wants to encourage members to better understand and utilize the statistical data that inundates the investment universe. You hold me to an unrealistic standard.
Comments
nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/how-poor-are-the-poor.html
https://russellsage.org/sites/all/files/Jencks_NYReview_Books_pt2.pdf
In other words, there was a significant reduction in hunger levels thanks to Food Stamps and a reduction in the amount of the elderly poor thanks to increases in Social Security benefits for the elderly poor in the 1960s.
From the article above:
"After adjusting for inflation, Congress raised Social Security’s average monthly benefits by about 50 percent between 1965 and 1973. These increases aroused little organized opposition, partly because workers who had not yet retired expected that making the system more generous today would benefit them too once they reached retirement age. In addition, many of the elderly poor were relying on their middle-aged children to make ends meet in 1964. Every increase in Social Security benefits reduced the economic burden on those children, many of whom were far from affluent.
Higher real benefits, combined with increases in the proportion of surviving retirees who
had worked in covered employment long enough to qualify for full benefits, cut the
poverty rate among the elderly from 30 percent in 1964 to 15 percent in 1974. By 1984 the official poverty rate was the same among the elderly as among the non-elderly. Today the poverty rate among the elderly is only two thirds that among eighteen- to sixty-four-year-olds and half that among children. Raising Social Security benefits was, in short,the simplest, least controversial, and most effective antipoverty program of the past half-century."
>> overarching view on this matter is that the poverty level in the USA has been mostly static since President Johnson's War on Poverty in the mid-1960s. ... The political solutions have mostly failed.
Wow, you really don't keep up, do you? 50 years of stasis, seriously? Where you been.
The poverty statistic that I recalled was one based singularly on income. It did not incorporate supplemental government programs like food stamps when calculating the number. Yes, the total percentage of folks classified as in poverty has decreased over 50 years, but the percentage drop has been modest at best. Given the magnitudes of the programs, I rate them as a failure since poverty is still a problem.
The various programs have changed the sub-group distribution of poverty. The percentage of senior citizens in poverty has been dramatically reduced, but other younger group poverty levels have increased. The overall results have been uneven and disappointing.
Government programs almost always produce some positive outcomes. Spending does that. The real issue is the effectiveness, the efficiency of the programs. Now that's a horse of a different color. The more local the control, the higher likelihood of success and efficiency. Communist systems learned this lesson the hard way.
In these exchanges, there is no need for vituperative posts. A friendly exchange is always appreciated and usually more productive. You guys seem angry.
Best Wishes.
As it turns out, the Census Bureau also publishes statistics that do incorporate these programs. They're called the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
You could make an even more forceful statement about the ineffectiveness of government programs - that not only has the War on Poverty not improved the lot of the young, it hasn't even been effective at the general population level - in 2010 poverty approached its highest level since the War on Poverty began.
But to do so, you would need to add all sorts of qualifications - that this didn't include the effects of the government programs, that there was a recession (with commensurate loss of jobs and health coverage), etc. As I recall, the economy was booming in the baseline year of 1965.
CBPP (2011): Poverty Rate Second-Highest in 45 Years; Record Numbers Lacked Health Insurance, Lived in Deep Poverty
You noted:"As I recall, the economy was booming in the baseline year of 1965."
A direct note about this and an area of business relative to Michigan and consumer demand/consumption on a broader U.S. scale during the mid-1960's.
If a young man/woman without training or other special jobs skills, no felonies and nominally in good health placed a job application for "blue collar/line work" at the big 3 auto companies in 1965 and beyond for several years, the following scenario was common:
---If age 18, immediate hire for the current or next shift available
---If younger than 18 upon application, return to the facility where you seek employment and either wait until midnight + 1 minute to begin work on a night shift and/or return the very next morning to start on a daytime work shift.
Shift work for most (GM) at this time consisted of two daily shifts: 6am-6pm and 6pm-6am, 7 days a week. Even with the $3.08 hourly rate at the time, shift premiums of 10% were in place, as the shifts and times were outside of normal work periods. Add the benefits at the time and well, these unskilled "labors" were making big money. A top of the line auto at the time, with every option, was genrally less than $3,000 new and most of the standard autos were about $2,000.
This was a very common situation, with which; I have direct experience.
Take care,
Catch
Pointing out that you do not really know what you are talking about a fair amount of the time, however much you say you read and give links and go on at such length, and pointing out in this case that you do not keep up, is hardly vituperative when you post as much as you do. You want to have it both ways, misleading with the airiest of assertions ('Communism'...) and/or speaking in ignorance, and then not get called on it? Sorry.
L5bee,
Articles and stats change my mind and modulate my thinking all the time. I doubt that I'm alone. Indeed, it seems (to take just one example) that for a great many people the understanding of gov debts and deficits, how they matter chiefly (not to say only) as a percentage of GDP, has been clarified and become more sophisticated over the last 5-10 years.
And this problem is only accelerating. By one estimate nearly half of all U.S. jobs will be replaced by technology in the next twenty years: nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/apr/02/how-robots-algorithms-are-taking-over/ So the solution to this problem is not to get more people working but to actually get some of the existing people out of the labor force so there will be less competition for the remaining jobs. Therefore the idea that the Social Security age should be raised so that elderly people will work longer seems a grievous mistake. Elderly people should actually work shorter periods and retire earlier so that young people can have the few remaining decent jobs. Even if we could somehow pump up consumption levels dramatically to meet the excess capacity created by improving technology, this would have dramatically negative consequences. For one U.S. consumption levels, which are significantly higher than any other nation, are the primary reason we produce more carbon emissions per capita than any other nation, exacerbating the climate change we are facing. Two, in order to increase consumption we have constantly relied on increasing levels of debt in every sector of society--personal, corporate and government. That debt to stimulate the economy could one day come back to bite us as many on this board are well aware.
Anger can be therapeutic - and sometimes arises for good reason.
At various times in the past I've been dubbed by one here as: "angry", "obsessive", or harboring some ulterior "agenda." That's a great way to throw cold water on a discussion.
And those kinds of attempts to play the role of "victim" do in fact sometimes make me angry.
Best Wishes
OJ
This seems to be a paradox as a hooga booga would never be obscure.
I am infrequently flabbergasted and just a little bewildered when mean spirited exchanges occur on the MFO Board. MFO is dedicated and designed to explore mutual fund investment initiatives, some controversial, which are best understood and examined in an emotionally neutral environment. I honor that purpose.
Based on some of your recent posts, it appears we share a trust in statistical data and analyses to improve the odds of making better informed investment decisions. My primary goal in most of my MFO submittals center on enhancing statistical numeracy among our Board participants. Statistical innumeracy is a major shortfall among investors.
I’m sure we would interpret much of the statistical data in a similar way. I’m equally sure that our interpretations diverge on some occasions. That’s the way of the marketplace.
Either way, you and I are never always right or always wrong. Somehow, you have judged that I “do not know what (I’m) talking about a fair amount of time”. That’s an assessment made devoid of context, documentation, and/or specific examples. It is a judgment that is totally gratuitous.
Also you join the chorus and criticize my posts because they are typically heavily referenced and too lengthy. I try very hard to establish the credibility of the positions I advocate. I try not to make grand assertions without some attempt at documentation. I never claim special training or soothsayer skills in this arena. All this demands time and space. The simple solution is to ignore my posts if they bore you.
For the record, I am not as frequent a site visitor or poster as you might think. Perhaps the assertiveness, the seriousness, and the possible impact of my posts have caused you some false signals on this subject.
Since its inception, I have visited MFO slightly more than one thousand times, and have contributed discussions and comments a major fraction of those times. I hate to waste an opportunity.
You joined over a year later, yet visited the site more than twice as often as I have, and posted a total of almost 1200 times. Our posting records are similar, but you have the frequency edge, especially given your shorter participation time. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
It is unfair to judge me uninformed only when our assessments have an occasional parting of the ways. Civilized, unemotional, nonjudgmental exchanges are likely to be more productive and more likely to promote a beneficial reevaluation of positions than arbitrary, vituperous, personal attacks.
There is a disagreement on just about every market trade. We have all experienced both winning and losing trades. A bad outcome doesn’t translate into stupidity just like a positive outcome doesn’t convert into brilliance. Extremes by definition are rare.
Investing is serious stuff, and I give it the respect it deserves on this fine website. Please do the same.
Best Wishes.
As for our histories, I have no idea and don't care. I started reading and using FA from the getgo, in the later 1990s, and exchanged email with Weitz many times, and have similarly been reading here from whenever it started (and have done the same irregular and ad-hoc exchanges with DS), regardless of when I 'signed up.'
I don't remember right off the top of my head the last round of assertions you made at length with other posters correcting you factually and interpretatively. This one on poverty and gov programs speaks for itself. Life is too short for me to satisfy your wish to give a history of your misunderstandings. I do not think calling you out, by anyone here, dishonors any purpose, and do not concur in your perception of vituperation.
That changes nothing. There may just be a reason that you incur these "attacks", and you might profit from a bit of introspection regarding the barely suppressed tone of superiority in much of your commentary. You're fond of claiming that others "misrepresent your posts". I suggest that your posts are quite representative of themselves. Maybe you have chosen the wrong type of forum for your "style"... perhaps something less plebeian may be in order.
Best Wishes
A member of the "80%"
Regards,
Ted
Thank you for your stimulating and thought provoking last posting. I have not given the technology/job interaction matter any serious thinking time until your well constructed post. The recent widening gap between technology advances and job destruction, or at least as a minimum, job displacement, escaped my attention completely. Thanks for the alert.
I was motivated to explore some resources on the Web by your post. Here is an excellent recent article from an MIT professor, David Rotman, that puts the relevant issues in some historical context. Here is the Link:
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/
The trends look dangerous, but recovery is the historical record. The jury is still out on this current gap. The number of comments to the article is impressive by itself. Enjoy.
Best Wishes.
The actual presentation starts around the 35 minute mark (empty chairs before then).
http://videostreaming.gc.cuny.edu/videos/video/3465/
Here's the full announcement (May 4, 2015):
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Public-Programming/Calendar/Detail?id=29498
- attention spans are decreasing
- long posts don't resonate with people
- consider the volume of what you write and the few people that read them
- there are curmudgeons here
- people sometimes post because they what to make a point, even if it doesn't relate to yours.
@mjg: Really? It's certainly been discussed and explored here on MFO on many occasions. The MIT paper which you have belatedly discovered (your link above) and classify as "recent" is itself over two years old. That classification is in fact a good example of the definitive leeway which you allow yourself, but loudly criticize in everyone else.
That MIT paper, by the way, notes that there has been "arguing for the last year and a half that impressive advances in computer technology—from improved industrial robotics to automated translation services—are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last 10 to 15 years." So lets add all of that up: Um, MIT paper, 2 yrs old. Referred argument, 1.5 additional years. Period covered by that argument, 10 to 15 years (lets just say 12). So, MJG, it would seem that you not only missed the "recent widening gap between technology advances and job destruction", but also the not-so-recent 15 or so years. Quite a miss, I'd say.
I would expect anyone presumably capable of relevant commentary on the current US macro economic and job structure to have given this factor major consideration. It's hardly been a well-kept secret, after all.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/tpp-fdi-and-good-jobs-us
Conclusion
"Although TPP often referred to as a trade agreement, the TransPacific Partnership is about much more than just trade. A number of the provisions that would likely appear in a final agreement impact foreign direct investment both directly and indirectly. The resulting expansion of FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] will bring many important benefits for consumers, firms, and – yes! – workers in the US.
The globalisation of foreign direct investment – both inward and outward – strengthens and improves the job base in the US domestic economy. Certainly, some jobs will be lost and others will be created in the process of global expansion. But the net effect is clearly positive, with the largest growth in high value added R&D intensive sectors. If members of Congress care about the creation of good jobs in the US, then they should get behind TPA and TPP."
Must be some very interesting conversations around your family's holiday dinner table!
Somehow these free trade agreements never quite deliver for the American worker like the pundits pushing for them promise they will.
Well, there's workers and then there's workers... note the clause "with the largest growth in high value added R&D intensive sectors". Admittedly, that's not going to make a dent in the "lower value" job sectors, and that's where most of the hurt is now coming from. But at least it's something, and I don't think at this point the problems for the "lower value" job sectors are so much the transfer of jobs to other economies (I think that that damage has pretty well been done by now) as the complete elimination of those jobs by technology and robotics.
Well, I suppose your most recent diatribe directed at me means that you have once again regressed to your unidirectional feud against me. You certainly hold a grudge that I don’t share.
As in many past instances, your recent assertions concerning my post both distorts and misrepresents my purposes and statements. You erect a false straw-man that is easily burned. That is an unworthy, corrupt tactic that is mostly reserved for the political arena. Your hostile posts fairly document your character.
I have contributed almost 1000 entries to the MFO Board. Reviewing all those submittals, I never claimed any special economic trend insights, never claimed any special market timing acumen, never recommended any specific stock or mutual fund selections, and especially, never advised any MFO members to follow any strategies or tactics that I referenced or described.
I have never claimed any formal economic training or understanding. I am not a professional economist or a financial advisor. I have explicitly denied such status on numerous occasions.
My formal education and practical work experience are all in the engineering disciplines. I often acknowledged that I am an amateur investor albeit a very experienced one. As such I have hesitated and frequently refused to reveal any of my specific portfolio positions. I don’t wish to contaminate other investor’s decision making with my prejudices and biases. I firmly believe that every investor should choose his own poison for his own purposes.
Note that the MIT referenced work is controversial. Data interpretations differ. The MIT analysis is not universally accepted by the economic community, The reported “gap” might well close again as it has historically. New technology always causes displacements. Time gap adjustments have varied in the past.
Sorry if you are disturbed by the fact that “I missed” this employment gap. As a group, economists have an earned reputation for missing turning points. So my failure on this missed observation really should not surprise or disappoint anyone. And I’m not even a professional economist.
You are in error when you ascribe to me any prescience and powers that I do not have or ever claimed to have. I consider myself just one of the MFO troopers who simply wants to encourage members to better understand and utilize the statistical data that inundates the investment universe. You hold me to an unrealistic standard.
Best Wishes.