Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gpowell who wrote (320)	10/20/2000 1:12:14 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Unfortunately for the industrial worker, there is no compensatory factors to soak up their increased supply. My husband works in the construction industry, he pretty much has to hire anyone with a pulse. In fact, so many of his semi-skilled and skilled workers are being imported from other countries, he has become quite fluent in Spanish. He also gets a lot of guys on work release and ones that have to pee into a cup as a condition of employment. If anything, we have a shortage of the less skilled right now. These jobs he offers are not bottom of the pay scale either, in comparison to say, retail rates they are quite good.

To: gpowell who wrote (320)	10/20/2000 2:04:17 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

I don't have an exact definition of unskilled labor. In the context of Krugman’s argument, unskilled labor is anyone displaced by automation. Very funny. Then his argument is petitio pricipii. It begs the question or assumes the conclusion in the premises. Apparently not, but they should since automation increases the productivity for all workers, not just industrial workers, the net effect ceteris paribus would be a lowered demand for all labor. So the quality of life of unskilled labors has improved. What's that worth? I submit that it's worth the difference that Krugman would like to lose. Since rates for skilled labor have risen (according to Krugman), the need to create, maintain, and run the new automation must have shifted (increased) the demand curve for skilled labor, which more than compensates for the demand lowering effect of greater productivity. I don't agree, but assuming it's correct: Unfortunately for the industrial worker, there is no compensatory factors to soak up their increased supply. This is unconnected. If an unskilled laborer loses a job, the laborer must find another and so must retrain. Since the supply and availability of inferior unskilled jobs is less, the laborer must come up to the skill level of a better job. This is why it is so critical not to have government there to make the transition easy. When it's easy the laborer settles for less. The term "unskilled" is so ambiguous that to attempt to apply it to characterize the employment patterns is hopeless. Those who do it, the Krugmans, are unskilled laborers who are paid an inflated wage because there is no free market to show the fraud they perpetrate. Consequently, income inequality widens simply because of supply and demand. This is never observed. QED. Further, income inequality is extremely difficult to define. Income distribution is remarkably constant, but the trend has been a widening of the normal distribution. This means that more people are moving into the middle class. The polarity of the past is transforming into a homogeneous mass where most have a reasonable degree of wealth. It's hard to find anyone in any class living a better life than others. Quality of life is independent of income.