"Permanent job loss" fallacy. There is no permanent job loss!

[jprad]

Quote from trade4succes:

I don´t think so.. when the horse-carriage industry failed in the early 1900´s, the new jobs in the car plants payed more i am sure of that.

Failed? The first automobile was built by Benz in 1888. It, like carriages, were built by hand. It wasn't until 20 years later with the mass-produced Model T that cars finally became cheap enough to begin the decline of the horse-drawn vehicle as the primary mode of transportation.

As far as better paid, it should be pretty obvious that you can pay someone a lot less when you only have to teach them a task, like mounting a wheel, then you would for a craftsman who builds the entire unit from start to finish by hand.

If you still don't believe me you really should read up on the low pay, long hours and horrid working conditions of early factory workers that led to the unionization movement in this country.

Or the new jobs at Yahoo in respect to job losses at the Post.

Here's the web site for careers at Yahoo!

http://careers.yahoo.com/

Select "all" for a job category and tell us just how good the job prospects at Yahoo! are for displaced postal workers.

 

[jprad]

Quote from trade4succes:

Don´t understand what you mean by the first comment.

Your entire argument presupposes that the total GDP is constant because it moves from one industry to the next as one goes away and another rises.

Cancer and diabetes are two of the most prevalent and expensive diseases that society has to pay for. If they were cured then entire industries would disappear along with them.

But, so would that money because not everyone pays for their healthcare, and those that do often have most of the bill paid for by their insurance company.

So, if cancer and diabetes were cured the total GDP would drop and the per capita GDP would drop even further as more and more people live longer and remain healthy enough to work longer instead of becoming disabled by their disease.

Second comment is nit-picking, making it black and white here, so it´s easier to understand. just imagine hypothetically ;-)

Any hypothetical that requires you to suspend reality is nothing more than a fantasy.

 

[Anaconda]

Quote from clacy:

The mortgage market is booming right now with refi's.

Why do I see so many mortgage offices closed all over the city & boroughs?

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from trade4succes:

External debt. That means that somebody external invested (deferred spending) in the US. So the dollars came back home afterall. And I didn´t know money had a lifespan.

Or it means that we bought things (our trade deficit) and the dollar went and stayed out of the US. It does not mean what you have said in any of your previous posts.

When a dollar is in the US, then there is a high multiplier effect. When it is out of the US, then it has none of that impact.

It should be obvious from everyone else they do not think you are well-versed in this subject. Giving your unsubstantiated opinion turns your arguments into sand.

You have proven nothing, and I do not plan to waste more time reading your responses on this subject, so you may speak into the breeze...

 

[Misthos]

One day soon we will arrive at the conclusion that many jobs are indeed worthless. They contribute very little and have only grown in size due to the asset value/debt based service sector economy (FIRE ECONOMY) grew along with fiat money. So yes, job losses will be permanent - at least for my lifetime - until the next monetary expansion/super debt cycle grows in another 50 years only to implode yet again 70-80 years hence.

 

[pulsescan]

Quote from Misthos:

One day soon we will arrive at the conclusion that many jobs are indeed worthless. They contribute very little and have only grown in size due to the asset value/debt based service sector economy (FIRE ECONOMY) grew along with fiat money. So yes, job losses will be permanent - at least for my lifetime - until the next monetary expansion/super debt cycle grows in another 50 years only to implode yet again 70-80 years hence.

LOL!

I laughed my head off!

That was the funniest picture I've seen all year!

thanks

 

[Cutten]

Quote from trade4succes:

*All* the money that gets sent to China from the US for imports is in US$. Foreigners in the end can only spend US$ in the... US! So the money always comes back in equal amounts as either investment (lowering cost of capital in US, therefore more economic activity, therefore more jobs!), or as payment for US fabricated consumption goods -> US jobs. So the money sent to China is not at fault here.

Since there is the same money going around in the US, how can the new jobs be lower payed? Temporary, yes, it´s possible, but as soon as the money saved (by buying the cheaper imported goods as opposed to the expensive domestic product) gets put to use, the keeping up with the Joneses effect will make the new jobs equally payed.

I conclude your argument wrong ;-)

Your are trying to convince ignoramuses with facts and logic. Good luck with that.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Lets see if I can prick a hole in that theory. Ok so 5% suddenly become unemployed. That means these 5% are no longer spending money. So its safe to reason that whatever business's these 5% spent their money on, will no longer be getting that money, so that means that those business's lose 5% of their income to which they then cut 5% of their work force or lower wages 5%. Now yes...we all have free cars now, but there is no extra money. Tell me where that extra money is coming from? I drive a full paid for honda. If tommorrow ferraris were dropping out of the sky, I just have a nicer looking car. I didnt make anything extra...my paycheck is still the same. (well actually im about to get a 5% paycut because all those autoworkers just got unemployed so business is going down) So i have a new car and less money. Now if i can only spend 95% of what i used to spend, and everyone else is the same, there is ANOTHER 5% drop in GDP and you can see how it actually snowballs if there is no new job growth anywhere.

Now i know what you are saying...I have a fully paid for car and alot of people finance cars so they wont be making those monthly payments anymore and they can use that money to buy other things.

How? If a guy is making payments and cars suddenly drop out of the sky, he is still making payments on that car. He might have 3 or 4 more years of payments to make before he finally has that extra cash. I mean unless he decides to just let the bank take his car back which will then proceed to sue him for the balance of whatever they auction it off for and since cars are free now, they wont be able to auction it off, so now the guy is sued and has a judgement against him and the court is docking his paycheck (which is already 5% less than what he used to earn) so he is hurting even more. Not to mention that if the banks decided not to come after him, it would be devastating for them to take so many loses and then the bank would cut jobs making it even worse!


Also the banks would be taking a hit anyway because they are not making any new loans for cars since they dropped out of the sky, so the banks finance department has to cut those jobs so theres another 5% out on the streets.


Did i shoot enough holes in your impossible to beat theory yet or do you want some more?

The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that if all goods and services could be immediately conjured out of thin air at no cost and without limit, then living standards would collapse.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from jprad:

Most replacement jobs are not equivalent in terms of pay, benefits and other quality measures.

If this were true then living standards would decline consistently over the years. The Stone Age would have been the wealthiest period in human history, and we would be much poorer and worse paid than people in the Middle Ages. The Industrial Revolution would have caused a surge in poverty and a collapse in wages and other benefits. The exapansion of global trade in the 1990s and 2000s would have made us all much poorer compared to 1989.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from jprad:

What's happens if someone discovers a prophylactic cure for diabetes and cancer that only has to be administered once, at birth?

In economic terms there'd be a significant benefit. GDP, living standards, and wages would all rise more than in the absence of the cure.