Saturday, January 14, 2017

Automation: Hindrance or Help?

James Pethokoukis has a couple of interesting articles on the role of automation in maintaining our economy and current per capita wealth (let alone increasing them). 

First, he makes the point that a major drag on economic growth is lack of workers. In the past economic growth has come both from employment growth and higher productivity. He cites a McKinsey Global Institute study.
GDP growth was exceptionally brisk over the past half century, driven by the twin engines of employment growth and rising productivity. However, declining birthrates and the trend toward aging in many advanced and some emerging economies mean that peak employment will occur in most countries within 50 years. The workforce in Japan is already shrinking in size, and the total number of workers in China will start to decline within a decade. This expected decline in the share of working-age population will place the onus for future economic growth far more heavily on productivity gains. (emphasis added)
Take one of those legs away by lack of employment growth because of no population growth and it's going to be hard to walk, let alone run.

But automation can give employment growth without rising population and could at least keep GDP per capita stable.
Our analysis of the automation adoption scenarios suggests that automation could help bridge the projected growth gap caused by a deficit of full-time equivalents worldwide. Automation alone will not be sufficient to achieve long-term target growth across the world, given the decline in the working-age population and the need for high productivity to achieve that target. Especially in fast-growing countries, other measures to boost productivity will be needed. However, notably, the productivity gains from automation could suffice to at least maintain today’s GDP per capita.
The McKinsey Global Institute study rates robots on a level with the steam engine in increasing productivity.
For example, between 1850 and 1910, the steam engine has been estimated to have enabled productivity growth of 0.3 percent per annum. Analyses of the introduction of robots in manufacturing and IT estimate that they have accounted for annual productivity increases of 0.4 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively.
Second, the big question is what to do with displaced workers who have medium or low skills that don't fit into the new economic format.

Though less than 5% of jobs can be 100% automated, 60% of jobs can have 30% of what they do automated.


The knee jerk reaction is to protect workers by hindering automation. But, that will neither protect jobs long term or help economic growth. Imagine the U.S. with all farming still being done on small family farms without automation. First, we couldn't compete with other nations. Second, even if we could, the cost of food would be in the range of four times higher than it is now. We would be spending 40% of our income on food rather than the current 10%. And with a lot less choice.

from The Atlantic
from NPR
The NPR piece points out that even with the automation of the 1960's, we are spending a little more than half as much as our grandparents spent on food. That's probably due to free trade policies as well as increased automation and more productive seeds, cultivation methods and animal husbandry in the last 55 years.

So, what to do? There's no magic bullet. Encouraging people to have more children won't work. And we have had too many problems with raising the workforce via immigration because most of those who come are low skilled.

That leaves trying to train a workforce that is more productive or can fill in the gaps where automation isn't feasible. That would mean better retraining of current workers and proactively encouraging young people to prepare for an increasingly mechanized work force.

Easier said than done. But, this seems to be the only option when the work force population is stagnant or decreasing and increasing productivity is the only workable tool to maintaining or increasing per capita wealth.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Here's a Funny Idea: How Mexico Can Defeat Trump

Answer: Buy Twitter for $12 billion and shut it down. Heh.

How Obama Has Influenced Trump


Then there is Obama the campaigner in chief. Who did lots of campaign-type events filled with crowd adulation during his presidency including his farewell address. Trump seems to be one upping him with his pre-inauguration "thank you" tour. Maybe there will not only be tons of campaigning events during the Trump presidency, but a farewell address tour too.

I wonder if President Trump will make himself a commander-in-chief badge like President Obama did.





Any Conservatives Still Out There Against Deficit Spending?

I just talked to a conservative friend yesterday who is all for the federal government "upgrading our infrastructure". She mentioned that she hoped it would be funded by taking money from other federal spending sources. Of course, that won't happen. It will be just another trillion dollars added to the national debt, and the debt ceiling will be raised enthusiastically by Republicans. We didn't get into the federal intrusion on state and local responsibilities, but Rush Limbaugh also is now not against big federal deficit spending or federal intrusion on state and local functions. Hey, it could be as politically productive as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. And political power is all we're interested in, right?

Since, oh, 1968 I've been against deficit spending except in war time (and maybe for the Louisiana Purchase) and against federal encroachment on state and local responsibilities like education, healthcare, and state and local projects. I haven't changed my position in 48 years, but some of my conservative friends are changing theirs because Republicans are now in charge of federal spending and our economy needs help. It's the old "throw money at a problem" in order to fix it.

Sorry, but local districts, Portland, Multnomah County, the state of Oregon should be responsible for the upkeep of local, city, county and state property in Oregon like roads, bridges, local airports and ports, public schools, public hospitals. There is a place for federal infrastructure in interstate projects, defense projects, post office, and on federally owned property.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . To establish Post Offices and post Roads . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings . . . . (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
But state and local projects and properties should remain state and local responsibilities. Federal money usually corrupts those local processes. "Free" money tends to do that.

Here's a U.S. debt chart for 1940 to 2025:


Jim Pethoukouis adds:
Still, Kraemer added, the incoming Trump administration’s current policy direction suggests bigger deficits, a larger debt, and an even higher debt-GDP ratio. And although more fiscal stimulus might boost growth for a bit, he likened that approach to igniting a “straw fire” that flames up and burns out quickly. He considers the US economy more or less at potential. So smart policy would focus on boosting the capacity for faster growth through deep reform rather than stimulus.
By the way, the most recent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimate finds Trump’s taxing and spending promises would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion to 105% over the next decade as a share of GDP vs. 77% currently. A lot of that comes from the Trump tax plan. Congressional Republicans, though, are promising tax reform will be revenue neutral. And Trump has promised a balanced budget sooner rather than later.
I'm for "deep reform" and against infrastructure "stimulus" which did not work for Franklin Roosevelt or Barack Obama.

Thursday, January 05, 2017

Fix for Nokia Lumia 635, Windows 8 Lock Screen Not Opening

I had lots of trouble getting my Nokia Lumia 635 Windows 8.1 lock screen to open. Trying to flick it up would result in the lock screen rising only about 1/2 inch and then droppping back down no matter how many times one tried to flick it up.

I tried turning the phone on and off. That sometimes worked, but not always. And it was time consuming.

Finally, I tried using the volume button (either up or down) and it opened the ringer/notification volume line which when pressed opened the upper third of the phone. From there you can flick the lock screen up and it will open.

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

Sarah Palin Needs to Apologize to Lots of People Including Herself in 2010

The shreds of respect I have for Sarah Palin have basically disappeared.

She now apologizes to Julian Assange for saying he has "blood on his hands" and should be pursued like "al Qaeda and Taliban leaders".  According to Palin in 2010:
We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.
First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?
Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?
The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?
We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.
- Sarah Palin [emphasis added]
Guess that's not important now that Assange posted documents that helped Donald Trump win the presidency. Who cares about Afghanis who helped the U.S. and its troops in war time? Not Palin.

Of course, she doesn't want to admit that. So, she now says, contrary to her 2010 post, that she was mad because he disclosed her emails.
To Julian Assange: I apologize.
Please watch Sean Hannity's interview with Julian Assange (Wikileaks).
Exposing the truth re: the Left having been oh-so-guilty of atrocious actions and attitudes of which they've falsely accused others. The media collusion that hid what many on the Left have been supporting is shocking. This important information that finally opened people's eyes to democrat candidates and operatives would not have been exposed were it not for Julian Assange.
I apologize for condemning Assange when he published my infamous (and proven noncontroversial, relatively boring) emails years ago.
As I said at the time of being targeted and my subsequent condemnation, though, the line must be drawn before our troops or innocent lives deserving protection would be put at risk as a result of published emails.
Julian, I apologize.
- Sarah Palin [emphasis added]
So what changed Sarah Palin's mind about publishing U.S. secrets or stealing and publishing private information? That it was done to "to democrat candidates and operatives" rather than Republicans or Sarah Palin and her buddies. And apparently exposing political shenanigans is now more important than exposing the identities of people who help the U.S. during war time.

This is pathetic and morally reprehensible.

However, taking Palin at her word, she should now apologize to young David Kernell for testifying against him for publishing her emails in 2008. And apologize to President Obama for calling his administration incompetent in protecting America from people like Assange.
However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.
Then there's the apology needed to the U.S. intelligence system.
Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?
At this point for Palin it's all good that anyone should get "unrestricted access" to "highly sensitive" U.S. security information and blab it. So, in light of this, please remind me what the problem was with Hillary's private server? Wasn't she just an unwitting Assange? He meant to publish America's secrets. Hillary didn't.

I am so sorry for my many posts in praise of Sarah Palin.  I apologize for not understanding how her character has changed. But, mostly I pity her. What a horrible thing to publicly turn on the truth and downplay betraying U.S. war time allies just because embarrassing but fairly innocuous stuff was published about your political opponents.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Schumer for Trump's Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Plan

Senator Chuck Schumer hasn't changed his mind about major stimulus spending just because the President is now a Republican.
Incoming Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer says he likes the sound of President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal of a major infrastructure plan, as long as it meets certain Democratic criteria.
“We think it should be large. He’s mentioned a trillion dollars. I told him that sounded good to me,” Schumer told ABC News' Jon Karl and Rick Klein during their podcast “Powerhouse Politics.”
But Democrats will insist that the package not be, for example, all tax breaks to investors.
“We’re not going to oppose something simply because it has the name Trump on it, but we will certainly not sacrifice our principles just to get something done,” he said.
Schumer also said Democrats can find common ground with the incoming president on trade, saying he doesn’t agree with all of Trump’s proposed solutions but does agree with his “diagnosis.”
“I’m more close to that than I am to Barack Obama or George Bush’s [positions], and so are a lot of Democrats,” Schumer said. [emphasis added]
Looks like this major addition to the national debt will be bipartisan.