logo
 

Go Back   HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-14-2011, 04:21 AM   #1
Boone & Crockett
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 17,822
Default Why job destruction makes us richer

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011

*

Job Destruction Makes Us Richer

*

*********** Here’s what President Barack Obama said about our high rate of unemployment in an interview with NBC's Ann Curry: "The other thing that happened, though -- and this goes to the point you were just making -- is there are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers," adding that "you see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate." The president’s statements suggest that he sees labor-saving technological innovation as a contributor to today’s high rate of unemployment. That’s unmitigated nonsense. Let’s see whether technological innovation causes unemployment.

*********** In 1790, farmers were 90 percent, out of a population of nearly 3 million, of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, fewer than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture. Through labor-saving technological advances and machinery, our farmers are the world's most productive. As a result, Americans are better off.

*********** In 1970, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 workers as switchboard operators, annually handling 9.8 billion long-distance calls. Today the telecommunications industry employs only 78,000 operators. That's a tremendous 80 percent job loss. What happened? The answer: There have been spectacular labor-saving advances in telecommunications. Today more than 100 billion long-distance calls a year require only 78,000 switchboard operators. What's more is the cost of making a long-distance call is a tiny fraction of what it was in 1970. Can we say these technological innovations made the nation worse off?

*********** Professor Russell Roberts, my George Mason University colleague, gives other examples in his Wall Street Journal article (6/22/2011) “Obama vs. ATM’s: Why Technology Doesn’t Destroy Jobs.” He says that today just a couple of workers can manage the egg-laying operation of nearly a million chickens laying 240 million eggs a year, through a highly mechanized and computerized process. Thousands of toll collectors are replaced by E-ZPass machines. Autoworkers are replaced by robots. Fifty years ago, a typical textile worker operated five machines capable of running thread through a loom 100 times a minute. Today machines run six times as fast, and one worker can oversee 100 of them.

*********** You say, “Williams, certain jobs are destroyed by technology.” You’re right, but many more are created. Think about it. If 90 percent of Americans still had been farmers in 1900, where in the world would we have gotten workers to produce all those goods that were not even heard of in 1790, such as telephones, steamships and oil wells? We need not go back that far. If there hadn’t been the kind of labor-saving technical innovation we've had since the 1950s -- in the auto, construction, telephone industries and many others -- where in the world would we have gotten workers to produce things that weren’t heard of in the '50s, such as desktop computers, cellphones, HDTVs, digital cameras, MRI machines, pharmaceuticals and myriad other goods and services?

*********** What technological innovation does is reduce the value of some jobs, raise the value of others and create many more jobs. Some workers are made better off through greater employment opportunities. Others are made worse off by having to accept less attractive employment opportunities, an adjustment process that can be painful. Since technological progress makes goods and services cheaper, and of higher quality, to stand in its way, in the name of saving jobs, will make us a poorer nation. What we're witnessing in our economy is what economic historian Joseph Schumpeter termed "creative destruction," the process in which something new replaces something older.

*********** By the way, we can always count upon an infinite number of potential jobs. The reason is that human wants are insatiable. People always want more of something. That want will create jobs for someone else.

*********** Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'

"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Fieldmouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2011, 04:52 AM   #2
Giant Nontypical
 
Knightia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Wy
Posts: 7,516
Default

[QUOTEHere’s what President Barack Obama said about our high rate of unemployment in an interview with NBC's Ann Curry: "The other thing that happened, though -- and this goes to the point you were just making -- is there are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,"][/quote]

Yep bobo( ya bigeared dingdong) maybe we have to get rid of those combustion engines / cars/trucks tractors( and horses & oxen) etc & get human rickshaws & human oxen- powerplants hmm.
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)

Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers

Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.


"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
Knightia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2011, 08:01 AM   #3
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 3,726
Default

Yes, Obama shows his lack of understanding of economics in this scenario. It is not surprising, however, when you consider his allegiance to the labor unions. Aren't those the guys who negotiate terms where if you replace a man with a machine you have to write into the rules a job of a man sitting watching the machine all day long?

Creative destruction has many, many guises. It is essential to understanding our economy and european economies that this concept "creative destruction" be fully understood. The US allows freer rein to creative destruction; europe allows less free rein to creative destruction. Whose economy is more vigorous and vibrant?

I was just reading about a crash up in France on this very subject lately. A German company has salaried people in France. It wants to close that office and start up a corresponding office in China where that work gets done -- looks like classic off-shoring. The French government rejected the German company's "social plan," what I assume is a study or report describing the rationale for this move and how the displaced workers will be treated. The basic objection of the French government to this "social plan" was that the home office had more than enough profits in other lines of work that they didn't need to shut this branch office in France down and move the work to China! So the idea must have been that the home office is expected to carry this less profitable division on the backs of the other more profitable divisions! Now how flexible is that? Do you suppose some companies avoid opening branch offices in France because of this very impediment? Would some companies open branch offices there is they had freer rein to reshuffle the deck when it suited them? I suspect yes. Likewise, if these french employees are stuck in this division doing work that is not competitive and only artificially kept in operation, that prevents those people from going and doing other things, perhaps things that are better for the economy.
Alsatian is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:31 PM.