I received the offer for the job I now have last July. I was living in Texas at the time. The unemployment rate was higher than it has ever been in my lifetime, and at the time of the offer, the market for jobs particularly in finance was flooded due to the chaos in 2008. I am not unsympathetic to a competitive job market.
Texas is doing marvelously well compared to the situations that the worst-off here are doing - even ignoring Dallas and Houston.
And you were in a position to take a job offer bringing you to Manhatten
from New York. I have a standing offer in Chicago, myself, but I made some promises I intend to keep.
But I do not think my position is based on personal experience but on evidence. We are in the midst of a very deep recession - I recognize that - and jobs will be scarce and the most affected will be the most vulnerable. Which goes back to my point that we should invest and encourage people to become competitive, regardless of the economic situation. I think that's the best way of attacking inequality.
That's actually one of the reasons I support shunting a lot of the tax burden to property taxes, by the way. You move your business back to 'fucking Texas, where land is cheap', pay a few people from 'fucking Texas, where land is cheap', people in fucking Manhatten have less insane prices and the city becomes a little less crowded...
A big part of helping that development along has to involve spreading available liquidity more evenly.
I am in fact curious about your view on this. I gather from our discussions that you think people ought to work for what they have - so do you think that people's jobs should be protected even if they can be done more efficiently if they were deregulated, or exposed to foreign competition?
I think protectionism is necessary when the lack of a given skill or resource would be a potential defense concern. Take China subsidizing rare earth production, killing off all American competition, then deciding it's not going to export any more, for example, our current scramble to come up with more nuclear engineers, or the original (not current) reasons for food subsidies. Government functions well as an insurance provider in this regard. That would imply that outside of perhaps a flat tariff any sort of protectionism should have a sunset clause - sure. It could also be used to provide a weaning period where necessary.
And I think you need to define deregulation better, as most people usually include environmental regulations (for example) and things like frequency tolerances for AC power, rather than bullshit like "You must have x workers doing y' even when y becomes obsolete. Punishing catastrophes after the fact is rarely an ideal situation. Especially when companies basically arrange for caps on their liabilities (see BP's $75 million cap...)
In general though, if a job is well and truly obsolete, and retaining it has no reasonable chance of having future value, it should not exist.
America has an insane amount of wealth, however - we can give every household a home and have enough left over for some people to have seconds. We can certainly make the transition a hell of a lot easier on people.
I recognize this...that's why we have affirmative action. (which I support)
The worst cases in the US actually involve Indian reservations, where it's working in reverse after a twisted fashion.
Right. But we need to distinguish between things that are happening now, and permanent structural changes to the economy. We were discussing protectionism and re-regulation - those are very different and...quite unrelated to getting money and credit moving through the economy again right now, which is a temporary freeze. (although I think that credit markets have improved quite significantly over the last year or two)
Someone who just lost their home because they got duped into a bad loan and thus owed more than it was worth isn't going to have the same coldly rational response to 'and your job is useless, too'. There are certainly more diplomatic ways to put it.
I have a personal... distaste for unions, and those who oppose automation. Maybe that comes with being a programmer.
Please, please don't call me a libertarian. It hurts. :) The FairTax thing was just for fun.
I wasn't. Libertarians tend to wonder what providing vaccinations for others do for them, use phrases like 'well their parents should have-', think that death by food poisoning is just the free market in action, don't understand what an externality is, and object to Ayn Rand being called a sociopath.
I think I blended two of them together there, oh well >_>