I imagine the term “job” also fulfills the need to feel needed, even if you’re lying to yourself about BlumgabberCorp needing a third schedule managing assistant.
That is the problem sir, people are in fact afraid of losing jobs. Affordability is considered out of their hands. A worker can protest about job and salary, it affects one person or one company. A worker won't protest against inflation because it won't be solved overnight even if the protest succeeds. So a problem is dealt using a large number of misfitting patchwork instead of one big tough really solution
By that logic people are actually worried about being homeless, their family starving while being exposed to the violence of unvetted migrants. Marthas vineyard was absolutely terrified.
There would always be need for new useful jobs in, for example, research, society improving construction like green transition, more teachers per pupil or medical staff etc.. Just how the transition can be done smoothly, when some area gets suddenly more efficient to do.
One thing that also gets lost in this discussion, especially when it comes to AI meaning "progress", is that we're still structured to learn and do things according to a potential for employment. This is why a lot of people don't know how to repair basic items in their homes anymore, because we can just make machines do it. It's going to be very interesting to see what skills nearly die out when things like writing, thinking, and art are automated. Yes, life will be easy... as long as a machine is plugged in nearby to do things we should already know how to do.
What I like to bring up is that cigarettes are amazing for the economy. The production is highly mechanized and cheap. Incredible amounts of jobs and money movements are occuring. The shortened lifespan of smokers reduces pension obligations and helps to keep the funds afloat. But not a lot of people agree with promoting smoking
A few some odd years back cigarette companies briefly tried to stop government regulation by claiming that smokers cost less over their lifetime as they would die younger. In addition to this being a bad look, opponents countered that even if the number of years is shorter, the higher likelihood of expensive-to-treat cancers offsets that. Also you're promoting your product by saying it kills people. I realize that was covered before but it bears repeating just how stupid a thing that was to say.
The national health insurance of Korea actually sued the crown company in charge of tobacco production, claiming that cigarettes were costing them money.
@@zivs2454 Agreed. Tax on tobacco in New Zealand has been increased by 10% + CPI every year since like 2010. Now its like 120%+ the price of the pack of smokes! Govt is raking it in - and its way more than enough to cover the healthcare for every smoker who ends up with cancer and then some - I actually saw the figures and was gobsmacked! (Used to work as an analyst for Stats NZ) Though to be fair, not ALL cancer is caused by smoking. Everybody dies.
Yes! As a PhD student I was about to mention this, we recently unionized because a majority of teaching and research work (which is necessary for university function) is done by underpaid grad students. Meanwhile administration is fighting us the entire way, primarily because they won't know how to pay for all their less necessary admin staff. It's not just us either. Faculty and service workers have also unionized, and it's making admin pull their hair out.
@@QT-JMEGood, my calc 1 tutor and other university program tutors like her have to do a bunch of free hours before they get paid, and tbh she has been the most helpful person in my first year. Thanks katty
very rare to see anyone in economics suggest that creating jobs that produce nothing is a drain on the economy; its a huge drain. Creating a job which produces nothing of value does nothing to increase the material abundance available to society. This is often a critique of government spending, but I say it applies equally to private capital. Currently, the standard for productivity is so low, that you could practically have people work on anything, it'd be worth it to get people out of wasteful jobs or unemployment.
The way I try to get the point across is to ask people: Don't you think as a species we have enough work to do without a bunch of selfish dipshits creating more?
Chavez did that in Venezuela, instead of reinvesting the oil revenue, he just created a ton of bullshit jobs for his supporter-voters, and even with all money flowing in they were stagnating. They all 'worked' and got money, but there was nothing really produced that would add to the economy, the same as just throwing the money from the helicopter but people have to commute to a specific place for it.
The entire fields of marketing and advertising are just crabs in a bucket. We pay billions upon billions of dollars a year for people to make ads trying to get us to drink pepsi instead of coke. Imagine if we said "fuck that shit" and redirected all that money and human effort into education, healthcare, housing, and infrastructure.
My firsthand experience with the anecdote was watching the small retail stores in a rural town near me got destroyed by Walmart and Amazon respectively over the years. Then when the walmart center and amazon fulfillment moved in, over half the people who lost their jobs were employed by them. Everything from retail to fulfillment to drivers. Millions of dollars to rebuild similiar infrastructure that they destroyed. We don't think about the jobs lost, just the jobs "created". Great anecdote about hiking btw.
Communism is where the government owns the businesses and use them to enslave the people to work for them. Fascism is where the business own the government and use it to enslave the people to work for them. And America is speeding down that fascist road as fast as it can, gladly putting on the shackles in the name of 'jobs'
I also think about the lower cost and wider selection at the big retailers. I remember those little stores, but I don't recall them paying higher salaries to their floor employees.
@@j3i2i2yl7Walmart floor employees don't get salary until they get promoted enough, they get paid hourly. Also, I don't know where you get this "lower cost" idea, as Wal-mart prices are at an all-time high.
Two things I noticed as being slightly misleading in this video: 1.) As many in the comments section have noted, the importer pays the tariff, not the exporter. This can be the same company, so a Chinese company importing their goods to sell to the American market, but the phrasing in the video implies it will always be the exporter when thats just untrue. The resulting effects of tariffs vary by circumstance, but most commonly, they will increase the cost to consumers in order to protect a domestic industry. 2.) Additional context on the Dockworker's strike is that they know automation is inevitable. However, if they bargain against it because it does harm the union members, it gives them leverage to negotiate things like pay increases for the employees who will survive the cuts as well as better severance packages for those who will lose their jobs to automation. They have to oppose the automation so that they can concede that point in exchange for concessions from the employer; it's something we've seen in other industries when unions were more common, and even occured for the previous generation of dock workers when standardized shipping containers made a lot of the jobs at docks obsolete. But, by opposing standardized containers, they were able to get the laid-off employees better deals and ultimately the containers got implemented amd the docks became more efficient. (I'm not saying it's an exact 1-1, but people often gloss over opposing automation as a bargaining tactic and pretend the union is obtusely standing in the way of progress)
The best analogy for tariffs that I've heard is the they are like a reverse railroad. A railroad makes shipping things cheap and easy , while a tariff adds to the shipping costs of certain goods.
@@WorBluxthe best analogy is literally just a sales tax. Everyone knows what a sales tax is. If a tariff/sales tax is 10%, then you pay the sellers price, plus 10% tax to the government to buy it.
I work in a government department that has 8 employees total. Over the past two decades the military has spent hundreds of millions on feasability studies on either merging us with another department or handing us over to contractors. The same 'ideas' are recycled by new officers wanting to look good for promotion, teams of people formed to carry it out that are larger than our department, and millions are wasted. The lastest idea that has been abandoned only this month was another 3 year project, and £150million spent, on handing our functions over to contractors. We don't even have what we need to do our job due to cuts and our budget is around £300,000 a year
And this is why we need the Department of Government Efficiency. They hopefully will cut out all those useless jobs. A 150 million study on the possiblity of merging two departments or moving a department to contractors for a department of almost any size should result in you getting fired for even suggesting it.
@@duckling9799there's already a government entities dedicated to efficiency in government tho like the Government Accountability Office. also trump doesn't have the power to instate new departments in government, only new offices.
@@duckling9799 a Department for Government Efficiency, like Musk wants to run, will just hand us straight over to contractors with the idea the private sector can do a better job, as usual and we've heard it before. The reality of that is covered in this video. I've seen the reality of that in another department where contractors sit around all day, while a handful of Civil Servants do all the work, and the contractor creams money off with their fat gold plated contract and getting paid for superfluous workers doing nothing jobs. I tell people if they want to see the worst of Government waste, and have it pointed out first hand, they can ask for security clearance and join me for a day at work
@@duckling9799 a Department for Government Efficiency will just hand us straight over to contractors with the idea the private sector can do a better job, as usual and we've heard it before. The reality of that is covered in this video. I've seen the reality of that in another department where contractors sit around all day, while a handful of Government workers do all the work, and the contractor creams money off with their fat gold plated contract, getting paid for superfluous workers doing nothing jobs
@@JSmith19858 It's an awful solution, but handing your jobs over to contractors would obviously be cheaper than spending 100s of millions on more studies.
I took an economics class and my teacher would just say “it creates jobs” like it’s a good thing by itself, ignoring how weird it is that the world is objectively better off when we have people doing stuff that clearly wasn’t necessary enough for them to do before
It’s funny you started with teaching. I quit my job as a teacher about 2 weeks ago. I’ve come to believe that they are intentionally running these schools into the ground. I went through the most insane set of circumstances before I finally quit. And we just got a new superintendent who got ride of a ton of admin who never did anything and they are trying like hell to oust her and she hasn’t been here 6 months yet.
In some US states there is an assumption that private schools are beter than public, so those states find ways to subsidize the orivate schools. Public schools retain all the students with uninvolved or poor parents, so their average scores tend to decline, which the state takes as reason to punish them with lower funding to incentivise them to perform better. It's a depressing cycle.
@ yes yes yes!!!! Oh I’m so happy I’m not the only one who sees this. They are vested a tired education system. That is why the public schools are failing. It is by design. They are doing exactly what you say…all the poor kids with uninvolved parents end up in public school and everyone else is in private or a charter school and then if you can’t perform on grade level or show yourself to have behavioral issues, the charters and private schools can just kick you out. Then you come to the public school with a huge ass chip on your shoulder and disrupt the entire school year. It happens year after year and the public schools keep getting worse and worse.
Fascinating, so it's like a prisoner's dilemma - the theoretical best outcome if everyone collaborates would be to create a system that removes and automates unneccessary jobs, and redistributes the wealth back to everyone so they can work less with the same quality of life. But, everyone is individually incentivised to have a job, even if it's unnecessary. So as a society, the equilibrium we tend towards is the non-optimal one where everyone works a lot for the sake of working :/
I we arnt incentivised to get a job but rather to make money which a business does even better, if costs of automation go down it will be easier to make a business and therefore the wage employees are willing to work for goes up
@@Rhys-x4e Well that would be true, but businesses and employees simply aren't on equal footing. The need for profit isn't as pressing as the need for sustenance, so without something like UBI employees may have to work for less, since the jobs supply will be lower. It's actually not unthinkable that we may end up in a situation where even though automation does most of the work, employees are still hired just so that businesses can have paying customers to buy their stuff (and most likely pay for themselves via government subsidies, as if it wasn't already absurd enough)...
Reminds me of a Rory Sutherland quote, 'in an economic model, if you fire your cleaner, or you marry your cleaner, and start doing the job yourself, thats a drop in GDP. Because whats measured is only those things that manifest themselves in financial transactions'
I did econ research in Britain in the late 80's. Just enough to know I didn't want to do it again. The outcome of our professors' work showed the previous North Sea oil boom directly resulted in negatives concentrated in other communities on the other side of the country. There's so much that's delusion in economics. We also did work that ended up showing that it was PM Chamberlain that first "saved" Britain by preparing it for war structurally. The different parts of the economy needed to be ready for isolation and disruption. Churchill was great, but he inherited preparations.
I've always thought it's kinda of crazy that this is not a fundamental pillar of economics, and instead the general zeitgeist is still obsessed with the maximization of rote econometrics. In literally every other academic field, the issues with metrics and their use to measure the real world are an absolute basic topic, but economics seems to be a discipline that desperately and deliberately tries to pretend that statistical technicalities are the end-all be-all of understanding reality.
It's sort of like how the USA used to produce things. But now our GDP is mostly various forms of rent seeking behaviors. Real estate rents, fines, fees, overdrafts, deposit thefts, interest on consumer debt, planned obsolescence combined with extortionate OEM replacement parts costs.
This is why I'm a big fan of employee owned companies and cooperatives. Folks are a lot less likely to put up with BS jobs in their workplace if they're the ones actually profiting off the success of the business. And since they're the ones actually working there, they are more likely to suss out when BS jobs are happening. Compare that to some absentee shareholder a million miles away who only sees the topline numbers. Combine that with open-book management, and you can get actually functional economics again. One can only hope.
@@tmaka2354 Because "socialism" will be forced upon you regardless if you want to be involved or not, on the other hand you're free to create an employee owned business and cooperatives in a free market economy.
In a proper (i.e. sufficiently free and with the rule of law) economy, workers absolutely benefit from the business' success too. The absentee shareholder could know better and actually listen to the people that's closer to the process, if not an employee at least a manager that's closer to them. That is up to each company, just like in cooperatives: some do fine, others do not. Market competition (customer choice) decides which ones stay.
@@tmaka2354 it's not socialism for people to voluntarily band together to participate in a capitalist economy. But, well, you'd need to FIND a capitalist economy, and those are increasingly rare as the government gets more heavily involved in every aspect of every market
@@MrTomyCJ I'd argue that is at best a utopian vision based on unrealistic expectations of human behavior. This gets especially bad when you have massive capital capture, since you eventually reach hard limits on human attention span and organizational capacity. Simply put, nobody can manage the level of diligence you're describing. You're right, with perfect actors, that would work fine. Let me know when you find folks like that. Cooperatives bridge the gap by recognizing human limitations and putting in place feedback loops that respond well to those problems. It's still not perfect or foolproof, nothing is, but what we do now (which in the US is pretty much exactly what you're arguing) very clearly doesn't work, either.
It'd be a good idea to attach a list of sources to your videos. This will make you more transparent and reliable than other TH-cam Gurus. Who knows? Maybe then you could do this full-time.
Orwell was usually commenting on what he did not like in the Union at the time. He writes a bit more about labour itself in Animal Farm. The farm animals are doing both odd prestige projects, their old jobs and useful improvements.
Nuh uh! I read 1984 at least 3 times and Animal Farm 2 times. Nowhere in the book they talk about digging holes and filling them back up. What the people do in 1984 that could be considered Bullshit jobs are the people on the Ministry of truth... But then, who is going to lie to the citizens?
It's from even before, a recommendation done by the Keynesians when the great depression was at its worst, the government intervention would generate a multiplier effect
Pretty sure that pie graph at 11:40 is meaningless. You labeled the slices as percentages, but...percentages of what? The population? The money? It's not indicated at all.
The population ofc. Have you never seen the difference between a million and a billion? Thats why there is a 24% and a 2%. And also everyone wants to be part of the top 1% no?
@@gareonconley1956 They're talking about the visual. The visual doesn't tell you what data it shows a ratio of, so you don't know what the percentages stand for. 2% of what?
I mean yeah it could be better labeled and I definitely agree but I think it's really easy to understand when listening to the voice over. He says, "Financial wealth is not evenly distributed", and it's reasonable to take from that the idea that the percentages are of population
Love this... Except for your portrayal of the longshoremen's strike. They weren't against any automation that could threaten jobs for the sake of jobs; they were against automation of large, heavy equipment like gates and cranes because those things kill people very easily and they'd rather have a highly skilled and experienced human, often one they know personally, in control over them. There's plenty to be said about automation for efficiency, but there's a lot more room for it in the jobs that don't need to exist to begin with, rather than the physical labor that requires precise training and split-second critical decision making. The only problem is people outside those jobs have been conditioned to think of them as unskilled grunt work for over a century... anyways, loved the rest of the video!
I'm getting more alarmed at how so much of our society isn't actually "real" like stocks, people get paid to hit buttons on a screen and browse facebook, and even most currency is just numbers in a machine. So much of modern life is so made up it's frustrating
we are on a planet where food grows on trees, but somewhere along the line, some idiot decided to come up with stocks, and now the lower class can't afford this food... how does this make sense? someone un-invent stocks pls.
@@NoReplyAsset If there were no stocks, then capital inputs would be way slower than what it is now. That also means less RnD expenditures and what we call 1% will turn into 0.1% and poorer class will become even poorer. The stocks are fine concept, but not their regulation. It's not the same thing when 10 people invest 1 dollar in company compared to pension fun manager who pops 10 dollars at once and wants more profit no matter what.
It's worth noting that local manufacturers will often raise their prices to increase margins. This leads to the full tariff or near to it getting passed onto consumers. There are some studys on this.
@@Micro-Econ-YTand there still is however due to the cost of the tariff there is a increase across all competitors compared to using other countries without unfair labour laws
@@Micro-Econ-YTif computers are sold at $100, local and foreign, and a $20 stuff is added, local companies will ALSO increase their prices by $20, because the foreign competition can't compete. This is tariffs working as intended, allowing local companies to sell things at a higher value and making it harder for foreign companies to compete. Either way, the $20 tariff is passed on to the consumer
@@magicball3201 That would be the case if there is no competitive domestic market. With a domestic competitive market there is still competition that drives the price down.
@@YraxZovaldo But if there's a competitive domestic market, it has been there before the tariff as well. If we assume that the foreign product had the most edge in this competition thereby driving all prices down throughout the market, a neutering of that edge through a tariff would release that stranglehold. Thus, all competitors would be free to increase their prices and find a new competitive equilibrium somewhere around the price of the imported good, or maybe a tad below that if they're feeling fancy. But since we're mostly talking tech stuff here, that's all mostly irrelevant anyway, since there is no sufficiently competitive domestic market Independent from suppliers from China.
Concerning AI, big businesses speculate it makes jobs redundant. They have to convince stake holders of that too and lay off people just to keep up the pretense that adopting AI makes them a more valuable firm. The immediate consequence is a drastically reduced quality of media for the sake of misleading stake holders and a never before seen increase in spyware crammed into new products. Microsoft, for example, _will fight to the actual death_ to put Recall on your device only to try and mislead stake holders into thinking that they have any grasp on AI, any will to implement it at _any_ costs. It is the worst product of all time and everyone fears it. However, line _must_ go up, so AI _must_ go in. God, I hate Microsoft. I hate them so much.
you mean "stock holders", right? when you say "its the worst product of all time and everyone fears it" this kind of blanket statement is just pointless... I get that you're trying to voice a sentiment rather than an argument, but I can't really make much of what you said there.
@@edumazieri Oh, thanks, a bit of arrogance as a treat. I could only imagine that you do not know what Recall is to be writing this comment. But then you could have Googled it. It boggles the mind!
@@Silly-s8n didnt mean sound arrogant, its just that your comment was too hyperbolic. I get that there's a lot of privacy concern over recall, and it's also fair not to want it on your device... but when you say "worse product of all time and everyone fears it" and "they will fight to the actual death"... I mean, you gotta admit those are not exactly nuanced statements... I'm pretty sure users that don't care much about privacy might even look forward to stuff like that. Not everyone thinks the same way.
@@edumazieri You know that stock is literally a stake in a company, right? Both terms are entirely valid. Don't try to "correct" people when you clearly don't know what you're talking about yourself.
@@nathangamble125 I didn't try to correct anything, I asked what they meant because at first I couldn't be sure if they meant any kind of stake holder or specifically share/stock holders - I'd rather ask than make incorrect assumptions about what they are trying to say. Which is something you might want to try too, do you have anything else to add to the conversation, besides assumptions about what I do or don't know?
At 4:37, the video wrongly claims that Chinese exporter will need to pay a tariff to get a product through US Customs. The Chinese exporter does NOT pre-pay the tariff. It is the US importer that must pay. That importer may be a US firm, individual, or affiliate of the Chinese firm. The importer cannot take possession of the merchandise until the IMPORTER pays the duty. The transaction will not materialize unless the importer agrees to pay whatever the exporter wants, plus the tariff. The higher net price may harm sales, and force some discount, but the final price will always be higher and paid by the US consumer. Any US-made substitutes may get some protection, but the home-made goods will cost more; otherwise, there'd be no need for a tariff. Any US jobs spared or subsidized by a tariff may help a small portion of the public, but at the expense of the majority. The scheme is a gateway to all sorts of lobbying, favoritism, and corruption.
The point he made is that if the importer is unwilling to pay the full price once the cost of the tariff is included, the exporter may drop the price of the product to proceed with the sale. The decision to buy or not buy at a given price lies with the importer, and will depend on a few things: - Do they think they can pass the cost on to consumers? - Are they willing to take a hit to their profit margin? - Are there alternatives they would rather buy instead (e.g. local products or products from places not being tariffed)? Trump is counting on them taking any option except raising prices for consumers. Given the lack of competition to China in many sectors, consumer demand remaining strong and US corporate culture it seems unlikely.
Im not sure what your point is. I see nothing wrong in the video. Its ofc still a modell. But in efficent markets it shouldnt matter who does the import. If someone else does the import he will ofc try to pass on as much costs as possible. So the chinese company has to sell there stuff cheaper. What mathematicly leads to the same price as if the chinese company does the import
@grnarsch5287no it's incorrect about what factually happens. Furthermore, why do you assume the exporter can just drop their price by 20% and remain profitable or would be willing to do that. Walmarts profit margin is 2.7% you think they're importing goods priced with a 50% profit margin? The importer pays the tariff and will pass it along. There is literally no confusion about that
@@2o3ief ok than explain what the diffrence is. The importer doesnt care who he passes the costs to. And the exporting company doesnt care at all what the product price is as long as it means max profits so ofc they are willing to drop the price if they sell more with less profit as long as the total profit is bigger. Also Walmart is such a bad example. Supermarkts are one of the markets with lowest profit margine. Also ofc they could rise the prices cause the competition has to deal with the same tarifs. Ignoring the fact that food in US isnt really Import driven
@grnarsch5287 you seem to think that China is some magical place where economic forces, supply/demand, competition don't exist. The reason the importer cannot demand the exporter reduce the price so that after tariff the price is the same is the same reason the importer themselves cannot eat the tariff--they cannot afford to. No one is China is manufacturing copper wire, DC motors, or any product at loss to ship to America. If Walmart slashed there's prices by 20% they would be operating at a net loss, this is true for the vast majority of business in the world and especially commodity and manufacturing business where the product isn't highly specialized and has regulatory protection. If I sell a wire harness that costs me .95 cents to make for 1 dollar. I cannot then go and sell if for .80 cents and why would I? If it was an option for Walmart to be getting there stuff for 20% less than that would already be happening. Its a free market ya know. Bidens had a more expansive traiff policy than the first trump term. The reason converse shoes have felt on the bottom is so they can be classified as slippers and pay a 3% tariff instead of a 37% shoe tariff. And yet it still makes no sense for Nike to make shoes here. The point is just stop saying obviously incorrect stuff so actual policy and merit can be discussed.
The issue with tariffs is if the Chinese drone costs 120$ and the American one costs 110$. Instead of the Chinese drone dropping its price to 110$ the American company will raise its price to 119$.
Not sure I agree with your suggestion of the way that tariffs work. If you are in USA and want a container load of washers from a factory in China you agree a price and they agree to make the washers. But they will do nothing until they have a letter of credit so they have guaranteed funds for their product. That means they get paid in full when they ship the goods. You the customer receive the goods at port and have to clear customs. Customs will tell you how much you have to pay to clear the consignment and that is the time that the tariff is identified and paid. The China company has been paid, you are the owner and so you pay the tariff to get the goods. Your problem. This means that if you import from China you will be paying an added cost to either pass on to others or something to eat your profit. Passing on the cost will be inflationary. Eating profits will mean less tax revenue. The company in China is business as usual. Who benefited from the tariff.
I think at least part of the assumption is that the washers are being sold by companies primarily headquartered outside the country they're being sold in. Like, flipping countries 'round, a chinese walmart location is still owned by the american walmart headquarters, so to speak, and if for some reason walmart wants to sell in china what it WILL own whether it makes such a sale or not, then tariffs on those things means Walmart either forks over the cash or doesn't get to sell the stuff off in china. Either that or maybe the idea is that the You in USA will explicitly choose other washers, so the chinese factory has to eithee eat the loss from tariffs or eat the losss of customers in the US?
You have a point, but it's also not as clear cut as you describe it. He offered one scenario and you offered another. In his example where the Chinese manufacturer lowers price can happen because you the seller don't want to compromise on your selling price and profit margins so you go get competing offers from other manufacturers, ultimately lowering the unit cost. How each ends up actually playing out will depend on the industry and how the tariffs get enacted.
The buyer will have an idea how much it costs to import goods with the new tariff, and so they won't order if it's more than they can sell it for. Thus China getting less orders. Assuming people will not respond to changing incentives is an easy mistake to make.
So you miss the entire point of a tariff. We are trying to disincentivise your purchase of chineese goods in the first place. If the price passed to the consumer now surpasses the price a US manufacturer can sell it at, your cheap chineese business model becomes non profitable. The whole point is to encourage American manufacturing that doesnt compete with chineese slave labour and sub par quality.
Even so, the government is controlled by those business leaders behind the bullshit jobs. Otherwise, we wouldn't see them constantly peddling the tired phrase.
Something tells me that anyone in support of capitalism like most politicians and economists would never take an anarchist's words seriously, even as the world burns around them.
Statistics are, most of the time, made up, I know, I made up statistics for my boss (the way he wanted though) because he had to show them to his boss, who was probably making up more statistics for a higher up. Half the time you don´t have enough or proper data to make a believable report, so you have to "improvise".
Thus also the whole industry of external consultants, who don't have any real qualifications and just look like they do, and only exist in order to justify management decisions and resolve disputes between different management branches. Of course there's any number of cases where it doesn't make sense to hire in-house expertise to answer a particular question and where an expert already exists out there and contracting them for a short stint just makes sense, but the bulk of the industry is not that, and only supplants real working insight that already exists distributed within the lower ranks of the company, ignoring which makes the companies usually less productive.
You do not need to made up statistics, just skew for your benefits. Way government do with official inflation. Like food grew in price 20% and golf court 5%. in average, inflation will be 12.5%. Or apartment new you grew 20% and in remote area(where there is no jobs) 2%, in average you get 11% inflation
Employment is not value. The only reason it is is because we insist on people earning their living despite the fact that there is literally not enough work for everyone and we have to make up jobs.
we make up jobs in industries that literally only exist to scrape excess profit as money moves between places that are actually useful. private medical insurance, for example. it only exists to scrape money from when people pay for healthcare. Government regulated, whether universal, subsidised, or 100% entirely privately funded, is universally better quality, cheaper overall, and causes less unnecessary death, for countries with equivalent development and respurces. it has no real purpose, it just charges the people getting healthcare more, and pays the people providing the healthcare less. This adds nothing meaningful and makes everything worse
@@AediNot to mention that in the US we already pay for Medicare and Medicaid but rarely have access to it, and it has to work within the bloated patchwork system of private healthcare as well
"Middle Management white collar jobs" we call that Waterhead here in Switzerland and yea in my corpo its a even worse thing since we got sold out to another company and have to hire those shared waterhead services and often its just to fill out new tools or reports the upper middle management wants done creating a cascading system of too much head but the cuts happen then on the bottom because "well we cant fire that middle manager that is doing important report filling duty"
This problem of creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs only exists because we're paid by the hour. If payment would've been based around actual output, there would be no BS jobs and automation would actually enhance the productivity, resulting in higher value output. This would work particularly well for the production of physical goods. However, attributing some kind of pricetag to that output can be very complicated, especially regarding services that have no concrete physical result, like teaching. Everyone knows that an educated population is important to a developed country, but its monetary value is hard to determine, especially on an individual level.
This. When salary is based on the outputs, you get a better compensation for 'working less' (but harder). Which is taking less time to do the same thing. Paying by the hour incentivizes taking the longest time possible to fullfil a task.
There is no scarcity of important work to be done on this planet, now and in the future. But the work that is needed are only rarely done through jobs that pay.
Thats because most of the inneficient work is inside the goverment (not all of them of course), and since government has infinite money, they can pay high wages for those employees who will then spend their money to consume stuff they need, increasing prices for the people who are making that stuff, making their wages feel low by comparison.
People should be worried about AI, every large corporation I have worked in has been very quick to try and cut labor even when it hurts the business, it isn’t like they are going to try and find me something different to do if AI takes me job. There is no altruism only profit.
It also uses a ridiculous amount of energy and data to train and maintain a learning algorithm. All so that it can do a generally worse job than a person
@@papercrane747 That is just for training, after you train it you do not need that much power. Besides, the way to make money is to monopolize the market. There is no second winner and to win that race you begin early. Everyone remembers who was the first in the moon, but no one remembers who was second.
@@iraklimgeladze5223Yeah, nice, how does that pay rent or a mortgage? You want a lotta homeless people on the street or do you want people to have homes?
@@tachobrenner Dude, if we invent AI which will be smartened than us, the world we know will be over. AI is not your regular invention. It will be humanities last and the biggest invention. When AI will be smartened than us, it could improve himself without human intervention and for machines times moves differently. When for us 1 hour will be passed, for AI it will be years. For us days, for AI centuries. When for us, it will take decades to create AGI, for AGI it will take months to create God. Here we are worried about mortgage and jobs when civilization is on stake
There never was. The executive class always hated the working class. They doubled down on it during Covid and made the LINE ALWAYS MUST GO UP policy into = screw over as many workers as possible for more value. It's class warfare at a new level of late stage capitalism.
how about we, let’s say, not eat the shit and dump it somewhere else? I know, a very revolutionary idea! Wait no, that is just called outsourcing labor. Non of this is as simple as anyone makes it out to be. No analogy covers the whole picture.
@@galacticdragon9841 dude the shit is in the FOREST they're walking through the FOREST there's no reason to eat random shit in the fucking WOODS cmon now
Imagine how amazing it would be if a whole factory gets laid of because machines can do the same production. It would be absolutely the best thing to happen because all those workers could be paid their salary without having to work for it. Except under our current system it only goes to the few people who had upfront money (which 9 out of 10 times they didn't have to work for) to claim all the profits. Workers deserve to profit from progress.
@@Rhys-x4e at the very least those workers created the profit which was invested to create the progress. So again, workers deserve to profit from progress.
Being automated means skill you spend years to learn are effectively useless. i think this is where the problem lies, now every skill you want to learn became a gamble on whether or not it will be automated or not in the future
Yep. And the saying, learn a valuable skill, becomes worthless. As that can too be automated away, making it worthless. Some will say, learn a tradesman. It will always be needed. But what happens when the other valuable skills get automated away, and trades become one of the few left for a population over a million that can't enter any other field due to the skills no longer being needed? Trades value goes down the drain. And the pay drops like a rock.
Mechanization and motorization in industrial and agricultural labour lets us do more with less. There would have been people inspecting stuff, carrying stuff. Me and the company machine can do the work of 5-10 people back in 1950. We are not completely removed or redundant, but the labour used is lower. Its not replaced wholesale, but elements of the job are removed. We have an additional service tech, but that's a part-time job from a bloke moving between sites. We did not hire ten full time service techs. It is pretty nice in some ways. People get effed up by manual agriculture labour.
the real problem is that society isnt moving towards a system compatible with automating tasks. We can do more work than we have any need for, and are on the first step of automating tasks that humans find annoying, boring, or distasteful. We should be adapting society so we can all do less work, sharing the responsibility more equitably, and ensuring that everyone gets adequate living conditions and pay, regardless of reduced workloads. But instead, we're screwing over the workers, hoarding wealth to the top, and pretending somehow this is the greatest system and the only one that could possibly work, even whilst its actively and irrefutably not working
Market freedom makes it easier for people to find new jobs, instead of requiring official certification for everything. Some of the skills may be useless, but not all. Intelligence and overal experience do help you in different jobs. Now, that hints at the fact the education institutions are not updating the way they teach to the new conditions.
The idea being that they don't purchase from external entities and patronize domestic entities and keep wealth in the country. People never finish the thought on this. Knowing ahead of time of the tariffs, alternative sources for supplies or goods are sought or developed. Are tariffs magic? No. But they have been used in the past for protectionist domestic economic policy. The US and Japan are examples of countries that have used this to benefit.
@@KarlFreeman-fe1ndyou know why we stopped using tariffs? Because they harmed the American economy. They are fine in the shorty term, but long term they start doing more harm than they ever could do in good.
@@KarlFreeman-fe1nd In many cases, this is completely impossible. Multiple studies show the complete and utter inefficient way in which these 'save jobs' (at 900K+ costs per job...). My comment is not an endorsement of tariffs but a statement of fact. Who pays doesn't matter because the result is equivalent (even your argument could also go if the exporter is paying). But the video is just factually incorrect.
@@codyott1982 It really wasn't. Much like the gold standard it limits growth. You're acting like tariffs have no validity as an economic tool. Just like any economic strategy it has limitations as does lowering tariffs as the US has done. I even said they aren't magic so what you're saying isn't new information to me. Even though the reason isn't that it hurt the economy.
@@Daniel-df1dt Tariffs are simply a tool. The economic climate dictates their utility. What you are saying doesn't make sense. What studies are you referencing? An exporter can choose to export to other countries. The US isn't forced to import everything from China and deals can be made if the parties aren't adversarial. I am separating the current political climate from the definition and function of a tariff. I made a comment and I think the guy thought I meant 2016-2020 and not 1824.
Also why governments frown on gig work but don't outright ban it - although it suppresses wage growth and contributes to under-employment, it also ensures gig workers don't contribute to unemployment figures.
Government messaging is often pro-worker, but government policy is often not. But people are too distracted yelling at each other to notice they're all voting for the same policies.
Error about tariff. The Chinese company does not pay the tariff. It’s the American importer who pays the tariff. For example, Target buys Chinese goods. Target pays the tariff.
Wow, congratulations on your impressive investment success! Your discipline and focus on delayed gratification is truly inspiring. I'm curious, what are some of the key factors that you consider when making investment decisions? Do you have any tips for those of us who are just starting to dip our toes into the world of investing? Thanks for sharing your story!
I don't know. I get it that a lot of useless jobs have been generated, but big corporate owners would rather automate whatever job they can or send jobs overseas to developing nations so pay them very low wages. They'll promise that they'll make cheaper goods but if most people are unemployed, where do they have the money to pay for goods?
There's this interesting analysis that it might lead to a future where only a few are actual consumers, and the rest are... just there (or worse, not there).
50% of the US population owns only 2.4% of the national wealth. What's the point in advertising or marketing to such a large and diverse group of people when they don't even have any money? Just sell to the wealthier people.
@@rampaginwalrusThat's how early modern period aristocracy worked. The court of the Sun King employed a lot of people for the needs of a few. There was still a regular economy for everyone else producing basic staples and little luxuries. You could be a skilled labourer making clocks, statues, tending horses, mixing perfume, weaving linen. Only human imagination puts a limit to elite consumption. You can definitely be a worker who can't afford the thing you produce. Or a farmer learning to cook pig feet because you sell the nice cuts. Putin doesn't like to show it, but he is probably one of the worlds wealthiest. He has a giant palace he doesn't like to show.
@@edumazieriIn the cyberpunk RPG Fates Worse Than Death, people are superfluous. They are stored in city centers with a welfare program keeping them alive. People do a few hours of paperwork to get a basic income keeping them just above poverty. You play either a street person, the unborn who have failed on the paperwork. Or a well that makes do with a mix of gigs and system support, or one of the few indies who has an actual job. Corporations are not the typical cyberpunk baddies with private armies. All they do is make truckloads of money. They are heavily regulated, including taxes that pay for welfare.
Heres the thing.... I work over 70 hours each week, and 140 every two, yet i cant afford to pay my bills and have some left over. Neither party is going to help us, believing a billionaire businessman is going to help the poor at the expense of the billionaire businessman, youre completely crazy.
@@BrianFace182 This IS actually the case as quite a number of people accept the first job that wants them. The first offer you get for anything isn't always the best offer. Or they are living above their means (this includes location). A minimum wage job at McDonalds can give you a decent quality of life in most of the US, if you can handle money.
Wait a second, did they just say that the Chinese company sending the good to the US pays the tariff? Tariffs are taxes levied on the buyers of goods that have been shipped into a country from a foreign country; the foreign business making the goods in the first place doesn't get taxed for shipping them.
it is insane how perverse the representation of the opposition to automation is depicted here people arent against because they are against progress or because they want to work more they just want to survive. Automation allows people to do more with the same effort in a sane non capitalist world this would mean people would just work less at a higher productivity but due to capitalist insanity what actually happens that fewer people are worked harder leaving many destitute and the "lucky" ones even more exploited. painting this as workers against automation is like saying that am against knifes because i would like not to be stabbed. The tool isnt the problem here. Also universal basic income is the antithesis of radicalism it is the LEAST radical "solution" (delay really) imaginable.
That opening story reminded me of an episode of "My Gym Partner's A Monkey." The main characters were trying to sell candy for their school fundraiser, and they just passed a dollar back and forth as they traded boxes of candy
One hand-wave economists always use when faced with jobs being eliminated from technology or free trade is "New jobs will be created". But now it seems this cope has reached its apex. The new jobs are low quality, don't serve society or contribute little or are fake in the sense that they're subsidized busywork, even in the private sector. Ironically at the same time, infrastructure is crumbling and new projects are "too expensive". I'm reminded of the great depressions WPA project. Economists always lament how bad it was, but the truth is many of its projects are still giving value to society to this day. If what we have done is make work or people redundant and we've already saturated most consumer free market needs, perhaps something needs to exist to absorb surplus labor for things that benefit society but won't necessarily generate profits. Railways, roads, dams, infrastructure, military, healthcare, police, elderly care or a space program. It won't be as expensive as people think if the money to pay for this would otherwise had gone to welfare anyway and is spent back on its citizens and not on imported labor or goods. If the money immediately circulates into the economy to people who are likely to spend 90% of it then that's stimulative. Giving handouts to banks they're likely to stick it all in an investment and achieve nothing but inflated house and stock prices.
The chinese company isn't the one paying the tariff. It's the importer of the good, whether the importer is Chinese or American. The exporter (the Chinese producer) pays nothing.
Dude that litterally makes zero difference. When you shop at amazon or walmart, that price is gonna be included anyways. Are you slow? The whole point is to decentivize chinese products. WHY ELSE WOULD TARRIFS BE CALLED TARRIFS.
@@honkhonk8009 You sound very angry, which is typical for an ignorant person with low intelligence and no critical thinking skills. Allow me to educate you. If the creator of the goods pays the tariff, this means the goods arrive with an already priced in premium. This means the importer will have to mark up the price even further to make the same profit they used to make pre-tariff, so there would be a "double taxation" on the goods instead of the single taxation you have with the way tariffs currently work, which only punishes the importer and the customer (US citizens). The creators of the goods don't get punished. For your information, even with these tariffs the goods are still _significantly_ cheaper to make overseas (in countries with cheap labor like China) than in the US. This is why tariffs will solve nothing when it comes to incentivizing local labor in almost all industries. Also this wasn't my point to begin with. I was just pointing out a mistake that made me stop watching this video. Its relevancy is irrelevant to the point I was making, but I wouldn't expect a low-IQ person like you to get it. 😁
@@honkhonk8009 That idea of discouraging Chinese products works well until you realize that: A) National products will also increase in price because the more money the better B) There are things that a country simply cannot produce on its own, like an iPhone
It's one of those things that I had never stopped to think about, but it does make sense: it isn't just about "creating jobs", but also about what those jobs contribute to.
Anyone that has worked in software will tell you that technology decays. It needs to be judiciously maintained in order to meet ever changing requirements. We’re already seeing LLMs decay in quality as they train on their own output. There’s no future where an AI handles everything for us. Sorry AI bros.
There might be a point eventually when AI will handle everything. But at that point, /we/ are pointless. And whenever or not it will see /us/ as a waste is up to those raise it. Which is why I'm praying it's NOT those who currently push it the hardest, because then we're fucked.
Yea i mean thats not really true. They may not pay directly but they still pay. It depends on the product elasticity. When the elasticity is high you are really wrong in this case the exporter pays almost 100% of the tarif. (Ofc he doesnt pay it. He has to sell the product exactly the amount of tarifs cheaper)
@grnarsch5287 The idea that they would pay 100% of the tariff (lower their costs to the seller to the point that there's no change in price) is a little silly. They may lower the price a bit, but you still need to make a decent profit to remain competitive, not just have low prices. There are plenty of imported inelastic products that the US doesn't produce in the same quality, quantity, or price, and the exporters can take advantage of that fact. All that being said, I can guarantee sellers will raise prices on domestic products and site tariffs and economic pressure as their excuse. This will also hurt domestic exporters as the US receives retaliatory tariffs.
@@Piratewaffle43 yes as i said only as long as there is high elasticity(and the tarifs are smaller than the profit margine ofc most dont operate cost negative...). If elasticity is low i agree with all your points. And when elasticity is somewhere in the middle idk around 1 i guess. They can pass on parts and pass the other part to the consumer. I agree that these tariffs are stupid consumer expensive and so on... But i also want to stick to the facts. And the importer pays for it is a pretty bad argument
@grnarsch5287 The degree to which the importer pays for it really depends on the situation and the import. For instance, any company that needs to import steel is going to feel a tariff on steel quite directly. They can try to buy the steel for less and raise the price of their products for their consumers, but they'll bear at least some of that burden if they want to remain competitive. So tariffs are paid by basically everyone involved to some degree, with that ultimately culminating in higher consumer costs.
We've become too obsessed with "Job as means to prove you get to live", with our jobs proving us as "worthy" of the "getting to live" paper... The jobs have become the ends instead of the means. And reducing how much human labour's needed isn't the good thing it should be, lightening the load we divide, but a threat to put people on the street while those kept employed are worked yet harder to compare to machines...
There's a lot of historical context for that, you can read up on protestant work ethics. Like the video said, the most messed up part is middle management... middle management decides who gets to keep having a job, and they would never point themselvs out to be redundant so... pretty soon they'll be organizing team building events for a bunch of robots.
Welcome to oligarchy, where whether you get to live or die are determined by the apathetic, morally bankrupt, and out-of-touch wealthy business owners.
Meaningless jobs play into Marx's theory of worker alienation. Having a job that doesn't visibly benefit your community alienates you from your community. Having a job that is vague or unnecessary alienates you from your craft. Having a job that undoes the work of someone else alienates you from your fellow worker.
In Finland, politicians especially cut social security and financial supports for the unemployed, so that the unemployed would look for work harder to get a job if they want to live, manage and get by; Because if they have to look for work harder it allegedly creates hundreds of new open vacancies and lowers unemployment rate; Because there is apparently some law of nature that when the demand increases, the supply automatically meets the high demand and increases supply. And employers and recruiters don't need to be obliged to hire the unemployed, because the system is automatic and described on the pages of the financial guide books and works in Excel. And the only thing that is needed is that the social security and financial support received by the unemployed is small enough and insufficient so that with it they get a minimum amount of food but cannot get by and manage.
It would normally. But your country has a minimum wage, while still economically interacting with China. Why the hell would anybody overpay for a Finn when they have China? The Chinese work themselves to death for litteral pennies on the dollar. You require astronomical wages, unions, taxes, and human rights. Your country villified blue collar work just like America did, and everybody went into white collar work so they wont get outsourced. Now their competeing with BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of indians/chinese while still acting like they have the same advantage over the same office jobs. The Chinese work themselves to death for litteral pennies on the dollar. You require astronomical wages, unions, taxes, and human rights. The rich get richer thanks to their unlimited labor pool, thanks to globalist capitalism and overpopulation. Meanwhile your too busy blaming everything OTHER THAN globalism while defending the right for the rich to send your job away. Your country had the same issue with America, and had protectionist laws to protect them from America. Now you have India/China, and the issue is mathematically 10x worse. Biggest "leopards ate my face" moment.
@@honkhonk8009Chinese incomes have risen. There is a real, growing consumer market. Chinese partly compare themselves to us, and partly to the poverty of 1960-80. Which is a pretty low floor to compare to. But a lot seem to feel they are better off than their parents. Like a very delayed post-war boom, the one we have already had. China does have a rapidly growing urban wealth, while the hinterland lags behind.
Yea that's exactly what happens when stupid people pretend they understand economics while understanding actually nothing. And it's of little consolation that most economists don't understand economics either.
Jobs are means not end of themselves, people work to live better and put food on their shelves. I can't remember from where i took it , i just remember this line
You KNOW where that UBI money MUST come from in order for automation to be a net benefit for society. Everyone saw how computers replaced workers, by charging slightly less than having a whole office full of people calculating numbers and directed it towards the owners of the new wonder machines instead of lowering the price of their goods and services - it's the basic blueprint of any Tech Billionaire. Luddites are RIGHT in a world where everyone competes with everyone because the only ones benefiting from automation are the owners.
That's right, the convenience of automation in any form especially in a world where corporations control everything is entirely for their benefit, not the workers. The fact that corporations invest in generative AI with the purpose of depowering creative people is the proof in the pudding.
It's truly a sad state of affairs when Luddites are only the bad guys in the world I want, and not in the world I have. I guess that's just motivation for me to make it so they indeed are wrong in the world we have.
Joining the debate. Why don't we automatize while still paying for the workers (I mean only manufacturing workers, because I'm also only talking about the automatization of manufacture processes, not administration processes.) the amout they used to produce before the automatization, or even use that amount to professionalize them? The reason I think that it don't naturally happens it's because the private and public capital wouldn't be growing as much as if these workes where just excluded from the economy. I also mainly think that the capitalistc logic of infinite growth in which the world economics work doesn't allow it happening neither. Hope my point was understandable, what you people think?
In order for UBI to work, we need to remove basically the housing market. But to remove the housing market, we need to have UBI first. Gross simplification, but its mostly accurate and i hate it.
You need neither UBI to decommodify the housing market nor do you need to decommodify housing to implement UBI. Both simply take the political will to actually do it.
I worry that AI is both going to cost jobs AND make life worse because it will be used in ways it isn’t suited. Who wants to talk to a robot? No one. Yet disposing of expensive customer service call centers was one of the first things it could do… kinda. Basically no one steering the boat cares about the quality of life or comfort of most of its passengers
It's far worse than useless middle management. Entire industries and companies are pointless when you take a step back from all the bs. The entire modern finance industry is the most ineffective bureaucracy ever created. But because it operates as muh free market it's a blindspot to most people and they'd rather focus on some government agency hiring a janitor when they could just let the building fall apart instead.
Utah legalized "supplements", which are mostly worthless. You know the stand in product idea of the "Widget"? It doesn't matter what the product is, the lesson is about something else. Supplements are basically mythical products in a billions sized industry. They have "standards", but the only ones based on truly valid science are government mandated safety and contamination systems and machines.
Utah legalized "supplements", which are mostly worthless. You know the stand in product idea of the "Widget"? It doesn't matter what the product is, the lesson is about something else. Supplements are basically mythical products in a billions sized industry. They have "standards", but the only ones based on truly valid science are government mandated safety and contamination systems and machines.
this is something I have intuitively felt for a long time, so much random knicknacks get made that never sell because we need to employ people, middle managers, supply companies for supply companies etc
capitalists are conditioned psychopaths. Literally tens of millions of tons of unsold food is thrown away every year. Perfectly good food, thrown into the trash because it wasn't bought. And somehow people can scoff at the idea of simply giving it to people who are hungry.
Love this video - keep -em comin'! And your explanation of tariffs is the clearest explanation I've seen, and addresses the oft confused elements of them. Great stuff and here's hoping 2025 is the year you can buy a much better laptop to edit videos on! :D
you re forgetting that in the year 2000 the IT sector was starting to penetrate into the education system top down, universities got their servers, then colleges got their servers, then high schools got their servers and now primary schools are starting to get their servers. "why do they need servers?" well because the security involved in integrating IT into the classroom, they want to make sure that each device is easily connectable but easily isolated an easily removable from IT perspective and that takes quality trained people that know what they are doing that earn the high end of the 5 figure inching into the 6 figure territory.
Technology has always been pitched to save labor, or allow us more free time. The only free time it usually gives people is free from a job. Until they shrink the workweek, or give us some other way to live, I don't see many people excited about this but CEOs.
It actually would if you were content with the life niveau of 50 or 100 years ago. I mean I could work so much less if I wanted only the exact stuff my great-grandparents had.
Tbf, ai, or really generative ai, has some issues besides the "it will take my job part". Like the large scale theft of artwork that was required to make it. But I do agree that it is a large part of it. And as artist myself maybe I would be less bothered if it didn't threatened a future where I could no longer do the art I enjoy because now it is no longer profitabe and i still need to make a living somehow. Like you said in this video. In general nobody dreams of having to do a job. Even if your job is something you enjoy it would be better if you could do that without the pressures that accompany it being a job. I was a programmer for a while. And programming is something I used to enjoy. Then it became my job and that took a lot of the joy out of it. Had that not happened im sure I would be doing a lot more programming today.
Number of jobs, GDP, GNP, etc… yeah they’re bad metrics from a human perspective, they’re only used because they can be objectively measured. Imagine basing your annual economic progress off of “how you feel”… we “felt better in 2024 vs 2023”….
3:10 Given that there is a a shortage of people going into teaching and also both more pupils and a demand for even better education quality. The obvious solution is to make existing teachers more efficient. Is the market response to that, not just hiring said admin staff, redistributing administration chores previously done by teachers to the new staff/job (which is more scalable due to being more cushy). Sure the amount of total employees increase, but it’s the only way to scale. Obviously the flat here is that you’re assuming the supply of teachers is fixed when in reality, by reducing class sizes and the amount of classes each teacher has to teach each day the job can be made more attractive. Though the best solution can be found by comparing the cost of hiring some amount more administrations to hiring some other amount more teachers (though I suspect teachers are underpaid compared to administrators if you consider (stress*responsibility*job difficulty - job enjoyment) as the metric for how salary should be calculated. Probably because they have to compete with other industry (including finance) for administrators.
Do you have any reports looking at the F35 supply chain efficiency? I'd be curious to see just how compact it could be, since such a complex piece of machinery would be expected to have a pretty complex supply chain. I've heard people make comment about military contractors spreading themselves out to influence politicians but I've never seen someone really try to substantiate it
Three points I want to make: only owners benefit from new technologies, two people work more than one person working double and AI is a desperate effort to compete against more populous countries. On the first point, a friend of mine who is an engineer close to retiring told me that when he started working he used pencil and paper, while now uses all sorts of advanced computer software to make the same sketches of prototypes. His productivity has gone up many times over, but his salary hasn't and he still has to work eight hours a day. Meaning that the many times X rise in productivity went all in the hands of the owners of the conpanies he worked and works for. On the second point. The typical workday for many people is an eight hours shift. Let's say that someone is very consciencious and wants to work ten hours. Let's say there is an even more ambitious fellow that is willing to work fourteen hours in a day. You then take two other workers doing a regular eight hours shift and they have already reached a higher amount of work hours than the first dude. Being rich means being able to command the work of other people. That opens up all sorts of possibilities. Most importantly, it makes any implementation of a business ideas much faster because there are multiple people taking care of whatever needs to be done. Technology, not even AI, can change this simple fact. Maybe you can send more e-mails using chatGPT and that's a good thing, but you'll never be able to beat two people doing the same thing as you, let alone several people. On the third point. The US has a huge power structure around the world that has to manage and maintain. They have to compete with many countries, which although are not able to surpass the US individually, they are certainly a huge challenge when faced together. There are eight billion people on the planet but only three hundred million in the US. My guess is that people in key positions think that they can compensate this population handicap by increasing productivity with AI. Problem is that also other countries have a very similar technology so it doesn't seem like a decisive solution.
The importing company pays the tariff in the first instance. As a second-order effect of the tariff, domestic consumers may 'pay' (so to speak) in terms of higher prices and/or reduced access to goods, while the foreign exporter may 'pay' (so to speak) in terms of reduced sales. The severity of the impact on consumers and exporters will depend on the specifics of each case.
@@laudermarauder they all pay. the consumer eats the extra cost when they buy the product, but not everyone is willing to do so, so it hurts demand and makes them less profitable. of course, that also reduces competition in the market, which itself causes people to pay more...
I've seen that teachers graph before. It's a percentage graph, what are the results of you comparing the raw numbers? If you're starting with one admin staff increasing it by 88% wouldn't even be one new hire per school. It might not actually be working that way but ive seen it be used to make the same point before
You were doing rather well explaining a topic to me that I knew nothing about. But when you mentioned the F-35... I don't know a lot about the f-35, but what I do know is that Lockheed Martin does not build all the parts, they build the plane. Did you know that the wheels for an f-35 are made by an English company? What about the tires? The wires? The glass? It's a supply chain. Of course it's gonna look like that. Ryan Mcbeth does an amazing job of explaining this in his video "debunking the military industrial complex" or something like that... There is no organization that values efficiency, like the US military. The reason why the defense budget is so high is because we have a large AND extremely competent military.
From what I understood, parts of your military are secret and compartmentalized. This is sometimes a feature actively sought out. I still see them as an industry interest, but there are many different industry interests. Contract soldiers are more expensive than European conscript reservists who support themselves on their day job in peacetime. Especially when an institution has to run its own pension system. Our soldiers don't have a full, separate welfare state just for them.
honestly i feel like the govt. would never do universal basic income. in their perspective, it is wasting money. i feel like they would just k!1ll half the population if they would ever do that. but i dont know. i love this video bro i hope to see more from your channel
@@Stxrmymp4 It’s not untrue though lmao. On the note of replicators, a good video on trekonomics (if that’s even a the thing) was made by Feral Historian, he proposes an interesting UBI hypothetical.
An issue is in determining what jobs are 'useless' and in a lot of these discussions people just come to the consensus that useless jobs are either the one they currently work in and hate, or a job they think is "obviously" doesn't contribute anything, when these things are not obvious in reality. At the end of the day there's no definitive measurement of `usefulness' and even those admin workers who might only spend an hour a day doing something we'd conventionally think of as productive may find the rest of the tasks they do enjoyable, or at least as good as the work alternatives they might be considering. In terms of the dock workers, we shouldn't be giving them crap for wanting to keep their jobs. We don't actually live in the world where there is a UBI (or benefit of your choice) that can replace the wages they currently earn, so we shouldn't expect them to welcome automation with open arms. I know the comparison with lamp-lighters was done mostly for comedic effect, but it's a bit unfair to be so emphatic that they're standing in the way of progress given the huge amounts of technology/automation currently used in ports.
I think a burger flipper at McD has a real job because its a service where I can clearly point to a previously unflipped burger. This is harder to do with an influencer or communicator or financial advisor.
@@SusCalvin You could say that the influencer's job is to provide entertainment and to advertise (which would also provide utility to the person trying to sell the product). And then the financial adviser can tell their client that it probably isn't wise to invest in *insert fad investment of the week here*. In both of these cases, as with your McDonalds example, you can always argue that perhaps the metaphorical burger should never have been flipped in the first place. But that just brings us back to my original point.
You should rephrase the fear of losing jobs to fear of inability to afford anything. It's the loss of income they're worried about, not jobs.
I imagine the term “job” also fulfills the need to feel needed, even if you’re lying to yourself about BlumgabberCorp needing a third schedule managing assistant.
That is the problem sir, people are in fact afraid of losing jobs. Affordability is considered out of their hands. A worker can protest about job and salary, it affects one person or one company. A worker won't protest against inflation because it won't be solved overnight even if the protest succeeds. So a problem is dealt using a large number of misfitting patchwork instead of one big tough really solution
By that logic people are actually worried about being homeless, their family starving while being exposed to the violence of unvetted migrants. Marthas vineyard was absolutely terrified.
There would always be need for new useful jobs in, for example, research, society improving construction like green transition, more teachers per pupil or medical staff etc.. Just how the transition can be done smoothly, when some area gets suddenly more efficient to do.
One thing that also gets lost in this discussion, especially when it comes to AI meaning "progress", is that we're still structured to learn and do things according to a potential for employment. This is why a lot of people don't know how to repair basic items in their homes anymore, because we can just make machines do it. It's going to be very interesting to see what skills nearly die out when things like writing, thinking, and art are automated. Yes, life will be easy... as long as a machine is plugged in nearby to do things we should already know how to do.
Came for the economic lesson, stayed for the story about crap. 10/10 would eat again.
I didn't know people would pay for my hobbies.
Lol😅
I came for both
Best steam reviews
Not funny
“Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
That sounds like cancer with extra steps
Oscar Wilde quote
bureaucracy carees about the process not the outcome.
Cancer grindset
Only thing bureaucracy is good for is documentation for foolish corruption.
What I like to bring up is that cigarettes are amazing for the economy. The production is highly mechanized and cheap. Incredible amounts of jobs and money movements are occuring. The shortened lifespan of smokers reduces pension obligations and helps to keep the funds afloat.
But not a lot of people agree with promoting smoking
Here in the uk we unfortunately have to pay for the idiots smoking
A few some odd years back cigarette companies briefly tried to stop government regulation by claiming that smokers cost less over their lifetime as they would die younger. In addition to this being a bad look, opponents countered that even if the number of years is shorter, the higher likelihood of expensive-to-treat cancers offsets that. Also you're promoting your product by saying it kills people. I realize that was covered before but it bears repeating just how stupid a thing that was to say.
@@rhysrailnah they pay way more into the system with tobacco taxes than the healthcare they need
The national health insurance of Korea actually sued the crown company in charge of tobacco production, claiming that cigarettes were costing them money.
@@zivs2454 Agreed. Tax on tobacco in New Zealand has been increased by 10% + CPI every year since like 2010. Now its like 120%+ the price of the pack of smokes! Govt is raking it in - and its way more than enough to cover the healthcare for every smoker who ends up with cancer and then some - I actually saw the figures and was gobsmacked! (Used to work as an analyst for Stats NZ)
Though to be fair, not ALL cancer is caused by smoking.
Everybody dies.
Universities are such a great example of this. Layers upon layers of admin staff... just getting in the way
and tuition has skyrocketed WHY ???
Yes! As a PhD student I was about to mention this, we recently unionized because a majority of teaching and research work (which is necessary for university function) is done by underpaid grad students. Meanwhile administration is fighting us the entire way, primarily because they won't know how to pay for all their less necessary admin staff. It's not just us either. Faculty and service workers have also unionized, and it's making admin pull their hair out.
@@ronblack7870 Infinite free money trick from the government (Federal Student Loans)
@@QT-JMEGood, my calc 1 tutor and other university program tutors like her have to do a bunch of free hours before they get paid, and tbh she has been the most helpful person in my first year. Thanks katty
And whenever a student needs help with something they are all useless
very rare to see anyone in economics suggest that creating jobs that produce nothing is a drain on the economy; its a huge drain. Creating a job which produces nothing of value does nothing to increase the material abundance available to society. This is often a critique of government spending, but I say it applies equally to private capital. Currently, the standard for productivity is so low, that you could practically have people work on anything, it'd be worth it to get people out of wasteful jobs or unemployment.
the line cannot go up forever
The way I try to get the point across is to ask people:
Don't you think as a species we have enough work to do without a bunch of selfish dipshits creating more?
Chavez did that in Venezuela, instead of reinvesting the oil revenue, he just created a ton of bullshit jobs for his supporter-voters, and even with all money flowing in they were stagnating. They all 'worked' and got money, but there was nothing really produced that would add to the economy, the same as just throwing the money from the helicopter but people have to commute to a specific place for it.
People are more productive than ever.
The entire fields of marketing and advertising are just crabs in a bucket. We pay billions upon billions of dollars a year for people to make ads trying to get us to drink pepsi instead of coke. Imagine if we said "fuck that shit" and redirected all that money and human effort into education, healthcare, housing, and infrastructure.
My firsthand experience with the anecdote was watching the small retail stores in a rural town near me got destroyed by Walmart and Amazon respectively over the years. Then when the walmart center and amazon fulfillment moved in, over half the people who lost their jobs were employed by them. Everything from retail to fulfillment to drivers. Millions of dollars to rebuild similiar infrastructure that they destroyed. We don't think about the jobs lost, just the jobs "created".
Great anecdote about hiking btw.
Communism is where the government owns the businesses and use them to enslave the people to work for them.
Fascism is where the business own the government and use it to enslave the people to work for them.
And America is speeding down that fascist road as fast as it can, gladly putting on the shackles in the name of 'jobs'
I also think about the lower cost and wider selection at the big retailers. I remember those little stores, but I don't recall them paying higher salaries to their floor employees.
@@j3i2i2yl7Walmart floor employees don't get salary until they get promoted enough, they get paid hourly. Also, I don't know where you get this "lower cost" idea, as Wal-mart prices are at an all-time high.
And yet it still costs half as much to shop there
@@maxscott3349 Hardly; if you've been to Walmart in the past year, the prices aren't much better than gas station and they're getting more expensive.
Two things I noticed as being slightly misleading in this video:
1.) As many in the comments section have noted, the importer pays the tariff, not the exporter. This can be the same company, so a Chinese company importing their goods to sell to the American market, but the phrasing in the video implies it will always be the exporter when thats just untrue. The resulting effects of tariffs vary by circumstance, but most commonly, they will increase the cost to consumers in order to protect a domestic industry.
2.) Additional context on the Dockworker's strike is that they know automation is inevitable. However, if they bargain against it because it does harm the union members, it gives them leverage to negotiate things like pay increases for the employees who will survive the cuts as well as better severance packages for those who will lose their jobs to automation.
They have to oppose the automation so that they can concede that point in exchange for concessions from the employer; it's something we've seen in other industries when unions were more common, and even occured for the previous generation of dock workers when standardized shipping containers made a lot of the jobs at docks obsolete. But, by opposing standardized containers, they were able to get the laid-off employees better deals and ultimately the containers got implemented amd the docks became more efficient. (I'm not saying it's an exact 1-1, but people often gloss over opposing automation as a bargaining tactic and pretend the union is obtusely standing in the way of progress)
I'm glad your said it because that is very misleading.
you try to highlight nuances but the reasoning just came out more complicated than it'd need to be
The best analogy for tariffs that I've heard is the they are like a reverse railroad. A railroad makes shipping things cheap and easy , while a tariff adds to the shipping costs of certain goods.
Very important context on both of those, thank you
@@WorBluxthe best analogy is literally just a sales tax. Everyone knows what a sales tax is. If a tariff/sales tax is 10%, then you pay the sellers price, plus 10% tax to the government to buy it.
I work in a government department that has 8 employees total. Over the past two decades the military has spent hundreds of millions on feasability studies on either merging us with another department or handing us over to contractors. The same 'ideas' are recycled by new officers wanting to look good for promotion, teams of people formed to carry it out that are larger than our department, and millions are wasted. The lastest idea that has been abandoned only this month was another 3 year project, and £150million spent, on handing our functions over to contractors. We don't even have what we need to do our job due to cuts and our budget is around £300,000 a year
And this is why we need the Department of Government Efficiency. They hopefully will cut out all those useless jobs. A 150 million study on the possiblity of merging two departments or moving a department to contractors for a department of almost any size should result in you getting fired for even suggesting it.
@@duckling9799there's already a government entities dedicated to efficiency in government tho like the Government Accountability Office. also trump doesn't have the power to instate new departments in government, only new offices.
@@duckling9799 a Department for Government Efficiency, like Musk wants to run, will just hand us straight over to contractors with the idea the private sector can do a better job, as usual and we've heard it before. The reality of that is covered in this video. I've seen the reality of that in another department where contractors sit around all day, while a handful of Civil Servants do all the work, and the contractor creams money off with their fat gold plated contract and getting paid for superfluous workers doing nothing jobs. I tell people if they want to see the worst of Government waste, and have it pointed out first hand, they can ask for security clearance and join me for a day at work
@@duckling9799 a Department for Government Efficiency will just hand us straight over to contractors with the idea the private sector can do a better job, as usual and we've heard it before. The reality of that is covered in this video. I've seen the reality of that in another department where contractors sit around all day, while a handful of Government workers do all the work, and the contractor creams money off with their fat gold plated contract, getting paid for superfluous workers doing nothing jobs
@@JSmith19858 It's an awful solution, but handing your jobs over to contractors would obviously be cheaper than spending 100s of millions on more studies.
I took an economics class and my teacher would just say “it creates jobs” like it’s a good thing by itself, ignoring how weird it is that the world is objectively better off when we have people doing stuff that clearly wasn’t necessary enough for them to do before
markets suck they rely off useless jobs to function
your teacher like many just saying opinions that would keep their job
It helps to feed the community view, that everyone has a role to play, there are no freeloaders, everyone is contributing.
It’s funny you started with teaching. I quit my job as a teacher about 2 weeks ago. I’ve come to believe that they are intentionally running these schools into the ground. I went through the most insane set of circumstances before I finally quit.
And we just got a new superintendent who got ride of a ton of admin who never did anything and they are trying like hell to oust her and she hasn’t been here 6 months yet.
In some US states there is an assumption that private schools are beter than public, so those states find ways to subsidize the orivate schools. Public schools retain all the students with uninvolved or poor parents, so their average scores tend to decline, which the state takes as reason to punish them with lower funding to incentivise them to perform better. It's a depressing cycle.
@ yes yes yes!!!! Oh I’m so happy I’m not the only one who sees this.
They are vested a tired education system. That is why the public schools are failing. It is by design. They are doing exactly what you say…all the poor kids with uninvolved parents end up in public school and everyone else is in private or a charter school and then if you can’t perform on grade level or show yourself to have behavioral issues, the charters and private schools can just kick you out. Then you come to the public school with a huge ass chip on your shoulder and disrupt the entire school year. It happens year after year and the public schools keep getting worse and worse.
You learn more from a 5 minute TH-cam video than a whole semester school course anyways. 😒
@@Halcon_Sierreno Incorrect everywhere across the cosmos
@@3_pancakes767 No.
Fascinating, so it's like a prisoner's dilemma - the theoretical best outcome if everyone collaborates would be to create a system that removes and automates unneccessary jobs, and redistributes the wealth back to everyone so they can work less with the same quality of life. But, everyone is individually incentivised to have a job, even if it's unnecessary. So as a society, the equilibrium we tend towards is the non-optimal one where everyone works a lot for the sake of working :/
At this point I'm warming up to the idea of UBI because my hobbies would essentially be slave labor in China lmao.
I we arnt incentivised to get a job but rather to make money which a business does even better, if costs of automation go down it will be easier to make a business and therefore the wage employees are willing to work for goes up
@@Rhys-x4e Well that would be true, but businesses and employees simply aren't on equal footing. The need for profit isn't as pressing as the need for sustenance, so without something like UBI employees may have to work for less, since the jobs supply will be lower. It's actually not unthinkable that we may end up in a situation where even though automation does most of the work, employees are still hired just so that businesses can have paying customers to buy their stuff (and most likely pay for themselves via government subsidies, as if it wasn't already absurd enough)...
An increible way of summarizing it up ngl
@cantoniacustoms And then landlords just raise the price of housing by the UBI =) UBI is a plaster on a bleeding gash
Reminds me of a Rory Sutherland quote, 'in an economic model, if you fire your cleaner, or you marry your cleaner, and start doing the job yourself, thats a drop in GDP. Because whats measured is only those things that manifest themselves in financial transactions'
I did econ research in Britain in the late 80's. Just enough to know I didn't want to do it again. The outcome of our professors' work showed the previous North Sea oil boom directly resulted in negatives concentrated in other communities on the other side of the country. There's so much that's delusion in economics. We also did work that ended up showing that it was PM Chamberlain that first "saved" Britain by preparing it for war structurally. The different parts of the economy needed to be ready for isolation and disruption. Churchill was great, but he inherited preparations.
Well, yeah, I obviously. That's exactly what GDP measures.
@@factorfitness3713 point being that gdp is not necessarily an all encompassing metric for prosperity and productivity as it is made out to be
I've always thought it's kinda of crazy that this is not a fundamental pillar of economics, and instead the general zeitgeist is still obsessed with the maximization of rote econometrics. In literally every other academic field, the issues with metrics and their use to measure the real world are an absolute basic topic, but economics seems to be a discipline that desperately and deliberately tries to pretend that statistical technicalities are the end-all be-all of understanding reality.
It's sort of like how the USA used to produce things. But now our GDP is mostly various forms of rent seeking behaviors. Real estate rents, fines, fees, overdrafts, deposit thefts, interest on consumer debt, planned obsolescence combined with extortionate OEM replacement parts costs.
This is why I'm a big fan of employee owned companies and cooperatives. Folks are a lot less likely to put up with BS jobs in their workplace if they're the ones actually profiting off the success of the business. And since they're the ones actually working there, they are more likely to suss out when BS jobs are happening. Compare that to some absentee shareholder a million miles away who only sees the topline numbers.
Combine that with open-book management, and you can get actually functional economics again. One can only hope.
furthermore people will be all for the idea until they hear it called “socialism” and then automatically switch their view. It’s honestly just sad.
@@tmaka2354 Because "socialism" will be forced upon you regardless if you want to be involved or not, on the other hand you're free to create an employee owned business and cooperatives in a free market economy.
In a proper (i.e. sufficiently free and with the rule of law) economy, workers absolutely benefit from the business' success too.
The absentee shareholder could know better and actually listen to the people that's closer to the process, if not an employee at least a manager that's closer to them. That is up to each company, just like in cooperatives: some do fine, others do not. Market competition (customer choice) decides which ones stay.
@@tmaka2354 it's not socialism for people to voluntarily band together to participate in a capitalist economy.
But, well, you'd need to FIND a capitalist economy, and those are increasingly rare as the government gets more heavily involved in every aspect of every market
@@MrTomyCJ I'd argue that is at best a utopian vision based on unrealistic expectations of human behavior. This gets especially bad when you have massive capital capture, since you eventually reach hard limits on human attention span and organizational capacity. Simply put, nobody can manage the level of diligence you're describing. You're right, with perfect actors, that would work fine. Let me know when you find folks like that.
Cooperatives bridge the gap by recognizing human limitations and putting in place feedback loops that respond well to those problems. It's still not perfect or foolproof, nothing is, but what we do now (which in the US is pretty much exactly what you're arguing) very clearly doesn't work, either.
Yeah so anyway, if someone could get me a job that would be great.
I can give you $100 if…
Hands you a knife and fork
There always construction
I'll give you 500 vbucks if u eat ur macbook
It'd be a good idea to attach a list of sources to your videos. This will make you more transparent and reliable than other TH-cam Gurus. Who knows? Maybe then you could do this full-time.
There's a line in George Orwell's 1984 where they talk about keeping people occupied by digging holes then filling them back up.
Orwell was usually commenting on what he did not like in the Union at the time.
He writes a bit more about labour itself in Animal Farm. The farm animals are doing both odd prestige projects, their old jobs and useful improvements.
"We're here to plant trees, but the guy responsible for putting in the seeds fell sick today"
Nuh uh!
I read 1984 at least 3 times and Animal Farm 2 times. Nowhere in the book they talk about digging holes and filling them back up. What the people do in 1984 that could be considered Bullshit jobs are the people on the Ministry of truth... But then, who is going to lie to the citizens?
It's from even before, a recommendation done by the Keynesians when the great depression was at its worst, the government intervention would generate a multiplier effect
@alanmichelsandoval8768 The alternative at the time was the fringe.
1:04 This whole situation is actually a russian anecdote
Pretty sure that pie graph at 11:40 is meaningless. You labeled the slices as percentages, but...percentages of what? The population? The money? It's not indicated at all.
you right
Probably meant to be share of wealth, but yeah, what part of the pop... it is meaningless indeed.
The population ofc. Have you never seen the difference between a million and a billion? Thats why there is a 24% and a 2%. And also everyone wants to be part of the top 1% no?
@@gareonconley1956 They're talking about the visual. The visual doesn't tell you what data it shows a ratio of, so you don't know what the percentages stand for. 2% of what?
I mean yeah it could be better labeled and I definitely agree but I think it's really easy to understand when listening to the voice over. He says, "Financial wealth is not evenly distributed", and it's reasonable to take from that the idea that the percentages are of population
Love this... Except for your portrayal of the longshoremen's strike. They weren't against any automation that could threaten jobs for the sake of jobs; they were against automation of large, heavy equipment like gates and cranes because those things kill people very easily and they'd rather have a highly skilled and experienced human, often one they know personally, in control over them. There's plenty to be said about automation for efficiency, but there's a lot more room for it in the jobs that don't need to exist to begin with, rather than the physical labor that requires precise training and split-second critical decision making. The only problem is people outside those jobs have been conditioned to think of them as unskilled grunt work for over a century... anyways, loved the rest of the video!
There is also a lot to be said for the kinds of automation that save lives, though most of that has already been done from what I've observed.
I'm getting more alarmed at how so much of our society isn't actually "real" like stocks, people get paid to hit buttons on a screen and browse facebook, and even most currency is just numbers in a machine. So much of modern life is so made up it's frustrating
right! and the fact people act like its life or death! disgusting
I get the sentiment, but most of life has to be made up, otherwise we'd just eat and poop and reproduce.
we are on a planet where food grows on trees, but somewhere along the line, some idiot decided to come up with stocks, and now the lower class can't afford this food... how does this make sense? someone un-invent stocks pls.
How about the "wealth creation" by crypto mining?
Just computers crunching numbers for the sake of doing so.
@@NoReplyAsset If there were no stocks, then capital inputs would be way slower than what it is now. That also means less RnD expenditures and what we call 1% will turn into 0.1% and poorer class will become even poorer. The stocks are fine concept, but not their regulation. It's not the same thing when 10 people invest 1 dollar in company compared to pension fun manager who pops 10 dollars at once and wants more profit no matter what.
It's worth noting that local manufacturers will often raise their prices to increase margins. This leads to the full tariff or near to it getting passed onto consumers.
There are some studys on this.
Yep if you are going to cut off foreign competition you need to make sure there is still local competition.
@@Micro-Econ-YTand there still is however due to the cost of the tariff there is a increase across all competitors compared to using other countries without unfair labour laws
@@Micro-Econ-YTif computers are sold at $100, local and foreign, and a $20 stuff is added, local companies will ALSO increase their prices by $20, because the foreign competition can't compete. This is tariffs working as intended, allowing local companies to sell things at a higher value and making it harder for foreign companies to compete.
Either way, the $20 tariff is passed on to the consumer
@@magicball3201 That would be the case if there is no competitive domestic market. With a domestic competitive market there is still competition that drives the price down.
@@YraxZovaldo But if there's a competitive domestic market, it has been there before the tariff as well. If we assume that the foreign product had the most edge in this competition thereby driving all prices down throughout the market, a neutering of that edge through a tariff would release that stranglehold. Thus, all competitors would be free to increase their prices and find a new competitive equilibrium somewhere around the price of the imported good, or maybe a tad below that if they're feeling fancy.
But since we're mostly talking tech stuff here, that's all mostly irrelevant anyway, since there is no sufficiently competitive domestic market Independent from suppliers from China.
Loved the starting parable.
Thanks! It’s an old joke so I can’t take credit for it, but it gives me a good laugh every time.
misread this as “the Stanley Parable”
Concerning AI, big businesses speculate it makes jobs redundant. They have to convince stake holders of that too and lay off people just to keep up the pretense that adopting AI makes them a more valuable firm.
The immediate consequence is a drastically reduced quality of media for the sake of misleading stake holders and a never before seen increase in spyware crammed into new products. Microsoft, for example, _will fight to the actual death_ to put Recall on your device only to try and mislead stake holders into thinking that they have any grasp on AI, any will to implement it at _any_ costs. It is the worst product of all time and everyone fears it. However, line _must_ go up, so AI _must_ go in. God, I hate Microsoft. I hate them so much.
you mean "stock holders", right?
when you say "its the worst product of all time and everyone fears it" this kind of blanket statement is just pointless... I get that you're trying to voice a sentiment rather than an argument, but I can't really make much of what you said there.
@@edumazieri Oh, thanks, a bit of arrogance as a treat.
I could only imagine that you do not know what Recall is to be writing this comment. But then you could have Googled it. It boggles the mind!
@@Silly-s8n didnt mean sound arrogant, its just that your comment was too hyperbolic. I get that there's a lot of privacy concern over recall, and it's also fair not to want it on your device... but when you say "worse product of all time and everyone fears it" and "they will fight to the actual death"... I mean, you gotta admit those are not exactly nuanced statements... I'm pretty sure users that don't care much about privacy might even look forward to stuff like that. Not everyone thinks the same way.
@@edumazieri You know that stock is literally a stake in a company, right? Both terms are entirely valid. Don't try to "correct" people when you clearly don't know what you're talking about yourself.
@@nathangamble125 I didn't try to correct anything, I asked what they meant because at first I couldn't be sure if they meant any kind of stake holder or specifically share/stock holders - I'd rather ask than make incorrect assumptions about what they are trying to say.
Which is something you might want to try too, do you have anything else to add to the conversation, besides assumptions about what I do or don't know?
At 4:37, the video wrongly claims that Chinese exporter will need to pay a tariff to get a product through US Customs. The Chinese exporter does NOT pre-pay the tariff. It is the US importer that must pay. That importer may be a US firm, individual, or affiliate of the Chinese firm. The importer cannot take possession of the merchandise until the IMPORTER pays the duty. The transaction will not materialize unless the importer agrees to pay whatever the exporter wants, plus the tariff. The higher net price may harm sales, and force some discount, but the final price will always be higher and paid by the US consumer. Any US-made substitutes may get some protection, but the home-made goods will cost more; otherwise, there'd be no need for a tariff. Any US jobs spared or subsidized by a tariff may help a small portion of the public, but at the expense of the majority. The scheme is a gateway to all sorts of lobbying, favoritism, and corruption.
The point he made is that if the importer is unwilling to pay the full price once the cost of the tariff is included, the exporter may drop the price of the product to proceed with the sale. The decision to buy or not buy at a given price lies with the importer, and will depend on a few things:
- Do they think they can pass the cost on to consumers?
- Are they willing to take a hit to their profit margin?
- Are there alternatives they would rather buy instead (e.g. local products or products from places not being tariffed)?
Trump is counting on them taking any option except raising prices for consumers. Given the lack of competition to China in many sectors, consumer demand remaining strong and US corporate culture it seems unlikely.
Im not sure what your point is. I see nothing wrong in the video. Its ofc still a modell. But in efficent markets it shouldnt matter who does the import. If someone else does the import he will ofc try to pass on as much costs as possible. So the chinese company has to sell there stuff cheaper. What mathematicly leads to the same price as if the chinese company does the import
@grnarsch5287no it's incorrect about what factually happens. Furthermore, why do you assume the exporter can just drop their price by 20% and remain profitable or would be willing to do that. Walmarts profit margin is 2.7% you think they're importing goods priced with a 50% profit margin?
The importer pays the tariff and will pass it along. There is literally no confusion about that
@@2o3ief ok than explain what the diffrence is. The importer doesnt care who he passes the costs to. And the exporting company doesnt care at all what the product price is as long as it means max profits so ofc they are willing to drop the price if they sell more with less profit as long as the total profit is bigger.
Also Walmart is such a bad example. Supermarkts are one of the markets with lowest profit margine. Also ofc they could rise the prices cause the competition has to deal with the same tarifs. Ignoring the fact that food in US isnt really Import driven
@grnarsch5287 you seem to think that China is some magical place where economic forces, supply/demand, competition don't exist. The reason the importer cannot demand the exporter reduce the price so that after tariff the price is the same is the same reason the importer themselves cannot eat the tariff--they cannot afford to. No one is China is manufacturing copper wire, DC motors, or any product at loss to ship to America. If Walmart slashed there's prices by 20% they would be operating at a net loss, this is true for the vast majority of business in the world and especially commodity and manufacturing business where the product isn't highly specialized and has regulatory protection. If I sell a wire harness that costs me .95 cents to make for 1 dollar. I cannot then go and sell if for .80 cents and why would I?
If it was an option for Walmart to be getting there stuff for 20% less than that would already be happening. Its a free market ya know.
Bidens had a more expansive traiff policy than the first trump term. The reason converse shoes have felt on the bottom is so they can be classified as slippers and pay a 3% tariff instead of a 37% shoe tariff. And yet it still makes no sense for Nike to make shoes here.
The point is just stop saying obviously incorrect stuff so actual policy and merit can be discussed.
The issue with tariffs is if the Chinese drone costs 120$ and the American one costs 110$. Instead of the Chinese drone dropping its price to 110$ the American company will raise its price to 119$.
Not sure I agree with your suggestion of the way that tariffs work. If you are in USA and want a container load of washers from a factory in China you agree a price and they agree to make the washers.
But they will do nothing until they have a letter of credit so they have guaranteed funds for their product. That means they get paid in full when they ship the goods.
You the customer receive the goods at port and have to clear customs. Customs will tell you how much you have to pay to clear the consignment and that is the time that the tariff is identified and paid.
The China company has been paid, you are the owner and so you pay the tariff to get the goods. Your problem. This means that if you import from China you will be paying an added cost to either pass on to others or something to eat your profit.
Passing on the cost will be inflationary. Eating profits will mean less tax revenue. The company in China is business as usual. Who benefited from the tariff.
I think at least part of the assumption is that the washers are being sold by companies primarily headquartered outside the country they're being sold in.
Like, flipping countries 'round, a chinese walmart location is still owned by the american walmart headquarters, so to speak, and if for some reason walmart wants to sell in china what it WILL own whether it makes such a sale or not, then tariffs on those things means Walmart either forks over the cash or doesn't get to sell the stuff off in china.
Either that or maybe the idea is that the You in USA will explicitly choose other washers, so the chinese factory has to eithee eat the loss from tariffs or eat the losss of customers in the US?
You have a point, but it's also not as clear cut as you describe it. He offered one scenario and you offered another. In his example where the Chinese manufacturer lowers price can happen because you the seller don't want to compromise on your selling price and profit margins so you go get competing offers from other manufacturers, ultimately lowering the unit cost. How each ends up actually playing out will depend on the industry and how the tariffs get enacted.
The buyer will have an idea how much it costs to import goods with the new tariff, and so they won't order if it's more than they can sell it for. Thus China getting less orders. Assuming people will not respond to changing incentives is an easy mistake to make.
So you miss the entire point of a tariff. We are trying to disincentivise your purchase of chineese goods in the first place. If the price passed to the consumer now surpasses the price a US manufacturer can sell it at, your cheap chineese business model becomes non profitable.
The whole point is to encourage American manufacturing that doesnt compete with chineese slave labour and sub par quality.
This is if the company isn't selling directly and instead it has a local, independent distributor
Bullshit jobs needs to be required reading for politicians, economists, and pretty much everyone else.
Even so, the government is controlled by those business leaders behind the bullshit jobs. Otherwise, we wouldn't see them constantly peddling the tired phrase.
Something tells me that anyone in support of capitalism like most politicians and economists would never take an anarchist's words seriously, even as the world burns around them.
Statistics are, most of the time, made up, I know, I made up statistics for my boss (the way he wanted though) because he had to show them to his boss, who was probably making up more statistics for a higher up.
Half the time you don´t have enough or proper data to make a believable report, so you have to "improvise".
Thus also the whole industry of external consultants, who don't have any real qualifications and just look like they do, and only exist in order to justify management decisions and resolve disputes between different management branches.
Of course there's any number of cases where it doesn't make sense to hire in-house expertise to answer a particular question and where an expert already exists out there and contracting them for a short stint just makes sense, but the bulk of the industry is not that, and only supplants real working insight that already exists distributed within the lower ranks of the company, ignoring which makes the companies usually less productive.
Well, it does seem pretty clear you can't distinguish between anecdotal and statistical.
You do not need to made up statistics, just skew for your benefits. Way government do with official inflation.
Like food grew in price 20% and golf court 5%.
in average, inflation will be 12.5%.
Or apartment new you grew 20% and in remote area(where there is no jobs) 2%, in average you get 11% inflation
Employment is not value. The only reason it is is because we insist on people earning their living despite the fact that there is literally not enough work for everyone and we have to make up jobs.
we make up jobs in industries that literally only exist to scrape excess profit as money moves between places that are actually useful.
private medical insurance, for example. it only exists to scrape money from when people pay for healthcare. Government regulated, whether universal, subsidised, or 100% entirely privately funded, is universally better quality, cheaper overall, and causes less unnecessary death, for countries with equivalent development and respurces.
it has no real purpose, it just charges the people getting healthcare more, and pays the people providing the healthcare less. This adds nothing meaningful and makes everything worse
@@AediNot to mention that in the US we already pay for Medicare and Medicaid but rarely have access to it, and it has to work within the bloated patchwork system of private healthcare as well
"Middle Management white collar jobs" we call that Waterhead here in Switzerland and yea in my corpo its a even worse thing since we got sold out to another company and have to hire those shared waterhead services and often its just to fill out new tools or reports the upper middle management wants done creating a cascading system of too much head but the cuts happen then on the bottom because "well we cant fire that middle manager that is doing important report filling duty"
middle managers tend to avoid firing middle managers, it's dangerously close to admitting they could be fired too.
This problem of creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs only exists because we're paid by the hour.
If payment would've been based around actual output, there would be no BS jobs and automation would actually enhance the productivity, resulting in higher value output.
This would work particularly well for the production of physical goods.
However, attributing some kind of pricetag to that output can be very complicated, especially regarding services that have no concrete physical result, like teaching.
Everyone knows that an educated population is important to a developed country, but its monetary value is hard to determine, especially on an individual level.
This. When salary is based on the outputs, you get a better compensation for 'working less' (but harder). Which is taking less time to do the same thing. Paying by the hour incentivizes taking the longest time possible to fullfil a task.
There is no scarcity of important work to be done on this planet, now and in the future.
But the work that is needed are only rarely done through jobs that pay.
Thats because most of the inneficient work is inside the goverment (not all of them of course), and since government has infinite money, they can pay high wages for those employees who will then spend their money to consume stuff they need, increasing prices for the people who are making that stuff, making their wages feel low by comparison.
People should be worried about AI, every large corporation I have worked in has been very quick to try and cut labor even when it hurts the business, it isn’t like they are going to try and find me something different to do if AI takes me job.
There is no altruism only profit.
It also uses a ridiculous amount of energy and data to train and maintain a learning algorithm. All so that it can do a generally worse job than a person
@@papercrane747 That is just for training, after you train it you do not need that much power.
Besides, the way to make money is to monopolize the market. There is no second winner and to win that race you begin early.
Everyone remembers who was the first in the moon, but no one remembers who was second.
@@iraklimgeladze5223Yeah, nice, how does that pay rent or a mortgage? You want a lotta homeless people on the street or do you want people to have homes?
@@tachobrenner Dude, if we invent AI which will be smartened than us, the world we know will be over.
AI is not your regular invention. It will be humanities last and the biggest invention.
When AI will be smartened than us, it could improve himself without human intervention and for machines times moves differently. When for us 1 hour will be passed, for AI it will be years. For us days, for AI centuries.
When for us, it will take decades to create AGI, for AGI it will take months to create God.
Here we are worried about mortgage and jobs when civilization is on stake
There never was. The executive class always hated the working class. They doubled down on it during Covid and made the LINE ALWAYS MUST GO UP policy into = screw over as many workers as possible for more value. It's class warfare at a new level of late stage capitalism.
Well, the shit ain't going to eat itself.
how about we, let’s say, not eat the shit and dump it somewhere else? I know, a very revolutionary idea! Wait no, that is just called outsourcing labor. Non of this is as simple as anyone makes it out to be. No analogy covers the whole picture.
Flies
@@galacticdragon9841 dude the shit is in the FOREST they're walking through the FOREST there's no reason to eat random shit in the fucking WOODS cmon now
Imagine how amazing it would be if a whole factory gets laid of because machines can do the same production. It would be absolutely the best thing to happen because all those workers could be paid their salary without having to work for it.
Except under our current system it only goes to the few people who had upfront money (which 9 out of 10 times they didn't have to work for) to claim all the profits.
Workers deserve to profit from progress.
But those workers didn’t cause any of that progress, however what they can do is buy some of those machines themselves and make there own business
@@Rhys-x4e Workers cause ALL of progress, who do you think built the damn machines?
@@Rhys-x4e do you have slave mentality?
@@Rhys-x4e at the very least those workers created the profit which was invested to create the progress.
So again, workers deserve to profit from progress.
This is literally communism.
Being automated means skill you spend years to learn are effectively useless. i think this is where the problem lies, now every skill you want to learn became a gamble on whether or not it will be automated or not in the future
Yep. And the saying, learn a valuable skill, becomes worthless. As that can too be automated away, making it worthless.
Some will say, learn a tradesman. It will always be needed.
But what happens when the other valuable skills get automated away, and trades become one of the few left for a population over a million that can't enter any other field due to the skills no longer being needed?
Trades value goes down the drain. And the pay drops like a rock.
Mechanization and motorization in industrial and agricultural labour lets us do more with less. There would have been people inspecting stuff, carrying stuff. Me and the company machine can do the work of 5-10 people back in 1950. We are not completely removed or redundant, but the labour used is lower. Its not replaced wholesale, but elements of the job are removed.
We have an additional service tech, but that's a part-time job from a bloke moving between sites. We did not hire ten full time service techs.
It is pretty nice in some ways. People get effed up by manual agriculture labour.
the real problem is that society isnt moving towards a system compatible with automating tasks.
We can do more work than we have any need for, and are on the first step of automating tasks that humans find annoying, boring, or distasteful. We should be adapting society so we can all do less work, sharing the responsibility more equitably, and ensuring that everyone gets adequate living conditions and pay, regardless of reduced workloads.
But instead, we're screwing over the workers, hoarding wealth to the top, and pretending somehow this is the greatest system and the only one that could possibly work, even whilst its actively and irrefutably not working
Market freedom makes it easier for people to find new jobs, instead of requiring official certification for everything.
Some of the skills may be useless, but not all. Intelligence and overal experience do help you in different jobs. Now, that hints at the fact the education institutions are not updating the way they teach to the new conditions.
@@eegernadeswhat happens when trade gets automated
Accounting-wise, the tariff is NOT paid for by the exporting firm but by the importing firm.
The idea being that they don't purchase from external entities and patronize domestic entities and keep wealth in the country. People never finish the thought on this.
Knowing ahead of time of the tariffs, alternative sources for supplies or goods are sought or developed.
Are tariffs magic? No.
But they have been used in the past for protectionist domestic economic policy. The US and Japan are examples of countries that have used this to benefit.
@@KarlFreeman-fe1ndyou know why we stopped using tariffs?
Because they harmed the American economy.
They are fine in the shorty term, but long term they start doing more harm than they ever could do in good.
@@KarlFreeman-fe1nd In many cases, this is completely impossible. Multiple studies show the complete and utter inefficient way in which these 'save jobs' (at 900K+ costs per job...).
My comment is not an endorsement of tariffs but a statement of fact. Who pays doesn't matter because the result is equivalent (even your argument could also go if the exporter is paying). But the video is just factually incorrect.
@@codyott1982 It really wasn't. Much like the gold standard it limits growth. You're acting like tariffs have no validity as an economic tool.
Just like any economic strategy it has limitations as does lowering tariffs as the US has done. I even said they aren't magic so what you're saying isn't new information to me. Even though the reason isn't that it hurt the economy.
@@Daniel-df1dt Tariffs are simply a tool. The economic climate dictates their utility. What you are saying doesn't make sense. What studies are you referencing?
An exporter can choose to export to other countries. The US isn't forced to import everything from China and deals can be made if the parties aren't adversarial.
I am separating the current political climate from the definition and function of a tariff. I made a comment and I think the guy thought I meant 2016-2020 and not 1824.
Also why governments frown on gig work but don't outright ban it - although it suppresses wage growth and contributes to under-employment, it also ensures gig workers don't contribute to unemployment figures.
Government messaging is often pro-worker, but government policy is often not. But people are too distracted yelling at each other to notice they're all voting for the same policies.
@@edumazieriNot always the case.
@@eegernades No, shouldn't take what I said too literally, but it definitely happens enough to be very noticeable.
Error about tariff. The Chinese company does not pay the tariff. It’s the American importer who pays the tariff.
For example, Target buys Chinese goods. Target pays the tariff.
Thank you for recommending Sarah Jennine Davis on one of your videos. I reached out to her and :nvesting with her has been amazing.
Wow, congratulations on your impressive investment success! Your discipline and focus on delayed gratification is truly inspiring. I'm curious, what are some of the key factors that you consider when making investment decisions? Do you have any tips for those of us who are just starting to dip our toes into the world of investing? Thanks for sharing your story!
Do you mind sharing info on the adviser who
assisted you? I'm 39 now and would love to
grow my portfolio and plan my retirement
@@สมรักษ์อินทร์ตา-ม7ฑ Sarah Jennine Davis is highly recommended
You most likely should get her basic info when you search her on your browser.
@@Elijah-e6vHow do I access her ? I really need this
+156
I don't know. I get it that a lot of useless jobs have been generated, but big corporate owners would rather automate whatever job they can or send jobs overseas to developing nations so pay them very low wages. They'll promise that they'll make cheaper goods but if most people are unemployed, where do they have the money to pay for goods?
There's this interesting analysis that it might lead to a future where only a few are actual consumers, and the rest are... just there (or worse, not there).
50% of the US population owns only 2.4% of the national wealth. What's the point in advertising or marketing to such a large and diverse group of people when they don't even have any money? Just sell to the wealthier people.
@@rampaginwalrusthat leads to a culling.
That wealth has to be distributed wider. The current system clearly isn't working.
@@rampaginwalrusThat's how early modern period aristocracy worked. The court of the Sun King employed a lot of people for the needs of a few. There was still a regular economy for everyone else producing basic staples and little luxuries.
You could be a skilled labourer making clocks, statues, tending horses, mixing perfume, weaving linen. Only human imagination puts a limit to elite consumption.
You can definitely be a worker who can't afford the thing you produce. Or a farmer learning to cook pig feet because you sell the nice cuts.
Putin doesn't like to show it, but he is probably one of the worlds wealthiest. He has a giant palace he doesn't like to show.
@@edumazieriIn the cyberpunk RPG Fates Worse Than Death, people are superfluous. They are stored in city centers with a welfare program keeping them alive. People do a few hours of paperwork to get a basic income keeping them just above poverty. You play either a street person, the unborn who have failed on the paperwork. Or a well that makes do with a mix of gigs and system support, or one of the few indies who has an actual job.
Corporations are not the typical cyberpunk baddies with private armies. All they do is make truckloads of money. They are heavily regulated, including taxes that pay for welfare.
Heres the thing....
I work over 70 hours each week, and 140 every two, yet i cant afford to pay my bills and have some left over.
Neither party is going to help us, believing a billionaire businessman is going to help the poor at the expense of the billionaire businessman, youre completely crazy.
What job could you possibly have
Get a better job
@@crisneros The only thing preventing prosperity for all is that we're all too thick to consider "get a better job" and need you to tell us /s
Trump helped me plenty in 2017, I don’t know what you’re on about
@@BrianFace182 This IS actually the case as quite a number of people accept the first job that wants them. The first offer you get for anything isn't always the best offer.
Or they are living above their means (this includes location). A minimum wage job at McDonalds can give you a decent quality of life in most of the US, if you can handle money.
Tariffs are paid by the consumer, no matter which way you cut it
bro literally explained why its more complicated than that but ok mate
@@ahole8392
He didn't said it wasn't more complicated. He's just stating a fact, which was literally said in the video.
you're a slave anyway they are just going ot squeeze you for wahtever they can
Wait a second, did they just say that the Chinese company sending the good to the US pays the tariff? Tariffs are taxes levied on the buyers of goods that have been shipped into a country from a foreign country; the foreign business making the goods in the first place doesn't get taxed for shipping them.
And the consumer and the nation is paying the price for not having tarrifs. On slave labor goods
it is insane how perverse the representation of the opposition to automation is depicted here people arent against because they are against progress or because they want to work more they just want to survive. Automation allows people to do more with the same effort in a sane non capitalist world this would mean people would just work less at a higher productivity but due to capitalist insanity what actually happens that fewer people are worked harder leaving many destitute and the "lucky" ones even more exploited. painting this as workers against automation is like saying that am against knifes because i would like not to be stabbed. The tool isnt the problem here.
Also universal basic income is the antithesis of radicalism it is the LEAST radical "solution" (delay really) imaginable.
That opening story reminded me of an episode of "My Gym Partner's A Monkey." The main characters were trying to sell candy for their school fundraiser, and they just passed a dollar back and forth as they traded boxes of candy
Havent seen that show mentioned in so long
That is an illegal way to inflate the statistics for how often stock is traded.
One hand-wave economists always use when faced with jobs being eliminated from technology or free trade is "New jobs will be created".
But now it seems this cope has reached its apex. The new jobs are low quality, don't serve society or contribute little or are fake in the sense that they're subsidized busywork, even in the private sector.
Ironically at the same time, infrastructure is crumbling and new projects are "too expensive".
I'm reminded of the great depressions WPA project. Economists always lament how bad it was, but the truth is many of its projects are still giving value to society to this day.
If what we have done is make work or people redundant and we've already saturated most consumer free market needs, perhaps something needs to exist to absorb surplus labor for things that benefit society but won't necessarily generate profits.
Railways, roads, dams, infrastructure, military, healthcare, police, elderly care or a space program.
It won't be as expensive as people think if the money to pay for this would otherwise had gone to welfare anyway and is spent back on its citizens and not on imported labor or goods.
If the money immediately circulates into the economy to people who are likely to spend 90% of it then that's stimulative. Giving handouts to banks they're likely to stick it all in an investment and achieve nothing but inflated house and stock prices.
The chinese company isn't the one paying the tariff. It's the importer of the good, whether the importer is Chinese or American. The exporter (the Chinese producer) pays nothing.
Yo, this dude has no idea what he's talking about. Idk if he gets the idea of a tariff, bc it's all backwards in the video
@@shaochiavang I stopped watching when he said that 😅
Dude that litterally makes zero difference. When you shop at amazon or walmart, that price is gonna be included anyways.
Are you slow? The whole point is to decentivize chinese products. WHY ELSE WOULD TARRIFS BE CALLED TARRIFS.
@@honkhonk8009 You sound very angry, which is typical for an ignorant person with low intelligence and no critical thinking skills. Allow me to educate you.
If the creator of the goods pays the tariff, this means the goods arrive with an already priced in premium. This means the importer will have to mark up the price even further to make the same profit they used to make pre-tariff, so there would be a "double taxation" on the goods instead of the single taxation you have with the way tariffs currently work, which only punishes the importer and the customer (US citizens). The creators of the goods don't get punished.
For your information, even with these tariffs the goods are still _significantly_ cheaper to make overseas (in countries with cheap labor like China) than in the US. This is why tariffs will solve nothing when it comes to incentivizing local labor in almost all industries.
Also this wasn't my point to begin with. I was just pointing out a mistake that made me stop watching this video. Its relevancy is irrelevant to the point I was making, but I wouldn't expect a low-IQ person like you to get it. 😁
@@honkhonk8009 That idea of discouraging Chinese products works well until you realize that:
A) National products will also increase in price because the more money the better
B) There are things that a country simply cannot produce on its own, like an iPhone
As a programmer with 5 managers and 7 project managers, I get this video
It's one of those things that I had never stopped to think about, but it does make sense: it isn't just about "creating jobs", but also about what those jobs contribute to.
Anyone that has worked in software will tell you that technology decays. It needs to be judiciously maintained in order to meet ever changing requirements.
We’re already seeing LLMs decay in quality as they train on their own output. There’s no future where an AI handles everything for us. Sorry AI bros.
No futire where A. I. COMPETENTLY handled everyrhing for us, tech bros would sooner end the world than stop pushing.
There might be a point eventually when AI will handle everything. But at that point, /we/ are pointless.
And whenever or not it will see /us/ as a waste is up to those raise it.
Which is why I'm praying it's NOT those who currently push it the hardest, because then we're fucked.
What? Exporting companies don't pay for tariffs, importing companies do.
Yea i mean thats not really true. They may not pay directly but they still pay. It depends on the product elasticity. When the elasticity is high you are really wrong in this case the exporter pays almost 100% of the tarif. (Ofc he doesnt pay it. He has to sell the product exactly the amount of tarifs cheaper)
@grnarsch5287 The idea that they would pay 100% of the tariff (lower their costs to the seller to the point that there's no change in price) is a little silly. They may lower the price a bit, but you still need to make a decent profit to remain competitive, not just have low prices. There are plenty of imported inelastic products that the US doesn't produce in the same quality, quantity, or price, and the exporters can take advantage of that fact. All that being said, I can guarantee sellers will raise prices on domestic products and site tariffs and economic pressure as their excuse. This will also hurt domestic exporters as the US receives retaliatory tariffs.
@@Piratewaffle43 yes as i said only as long as there is high elasticity(and the tarifs are smaller than the profit margine ofc most dont operate cost negative...). If elasticity is low i agree with all your points. And when elasticity is somewhere in the middle idk around 1 i guess. They can pass on parts and pass the other part to the consumer.
I agree that these tariffs are stupid consumer expensive and so on... But i also want to stick to the facts. And the importer pays for it is a pretty bad argument
@grnarsch5287 The degree to which the importer pays for it really depends on the situation and the import. For instance, any company that needs to import steel is going to feel a tariff on steel quite directly. They can try to buy the steel for less and raise the price of their products for their consumers, but they'll bear at least some of that burden if they want to remain competitive. So tariffs are paid by basically everyone involved to some degree, with that ultimately culminating in higher consumer costs.
Ive always hated the "BUT IT CREATES JOBS" argument.
So if a company was making torture chairs for toddlers then its okay cuz it "creates jobs"
We've become too obsessed with "Job as means to prove you get to live", with our jobs proving us as "worthy" of the "getting to live" paper...
The jobs have become the ends instead of the means.
And reducing how much human labour's needed isn't the good thing it should be, lightening the load we divide, but a threat to put people on the street while those kept employed are worked yet harder to compare to machines...
They basically believe in the Nazi ideology of "useless eaters". They see people as productivity units, not as human beings.
There's a lot of historical context for that, you can read up on protestant work ethics.
Like the video said, the most messed up part is middle management... middle management decides who gets to keep having a job, and they would never point themselvs out to be redundant so... pretty soon they'll be organizing team building events for a bunch of robots.
@@edumazieri The historical context is that they believe in Nazi ideology of useless eaters. They are ontologically evil and feed on suffering.
@@edumazieri The historical context is that they are ontologically evil and feed on suffering.
Welcome to oligarchy, where whether you get to live or die are determined by the apathetic, morally bankrupt, and out-of-touch wealthy business owners.
This was a good watch, leaving a comment for algorithms sake. Hope more ppl catch onto this
I really enjoyed the joke. This whole issue tells a lot about human nature and how superficial we truly are.
Great title! Never clicked so fast. Very glad that the video was also worth watching.
Actually too big to fail is number one I beleive
That is indeed stiff competition
@@Micro-Econ-YTEven my most free market liberal mates agree that's just begging for anti-trust laws.
Meaningless jobs play into Marx's theory of worker alienation. Having a job that doesn't visibly benefit your community alienates you from your community. Having a job that is vague or unnecessary alienates you from your craft. Having a job that undoes the work of someone else alienates you from your fellow worker.
In Finland, politicians especially cut social security and financial supports for the unemployed, so that the unemployed would look for work harder to get a job if they want to live, manage and get by; Because if they have to look for work harder it allegedly creates hundreds of new open vacancies and lowers unemployment rate; Because there is apparently some law of nature that when the demand increases, the supply automatically meets the high demand and increases supply. And employers and recruiters don't need to be obliged to hire the unemployed, because the system is automatic and described on the pages of the financial guide books and works in Excel. And the only thing that is needed is that the social security and financial support received by the unemployed is small enough and insufficient so that with it they get a minimum amount of food but cannot get by and manage.
It would normally. But your country has a minimum wage, while still economically interacting with China. Why the hell would anybody overpay for a Finn when they have China?
The Chinese work themselves to death for litteral pennies on the dollar. You require astronomical wages, unions, taxes, and human rights.
Your country villified blue collar work just like America did, and everybody went into white collar work so they wont get outsourced.
Now their competeing with BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of indians/chinese while still acting like they have the same advantage over the same office jobs.
The Chinese work themselves to death for litteral pennies on the dollar. You require astronomical wages, unions, taxes, and human rights.
The rich get richer thanks to their unlimited labor pool, thanks to globalist capitalism and overpopulation.
Meanwhile your too busy blaming everything OTHER THAN globalism while defending the right for the rich to send your job away.
Your country had the same issue with America, and had protectionist laws to protect them from America. Now you have India/China, and the issue is mathematically 10x worse.
Biggest "leopards ate my face" moment.
@@honkhonk8009Chinese incomes have risen. There is a real, growing consumer market.
Chinese partly compare themselves to us, and partly to the poverty of 1960-80. Which is a pretty low floor to compare to. But a lot seem to feel they are better off than their parents. Like a very delayed post-war boom, the one we have already had.
China does have a rapidly growing urban wealth, while the hinterland lags behind.
Yea that's exactly what happens when stupid people pretend they understand economics while understanding actually nothing. And it's of little consolation that most economists don't understand economics either.
Jobs are means not end of themselves, people work to live better and put food on their shelves.
I can't remember from where i took it , i just remember this line
11:50 it's sad that having basic things like food and shelter feel like luxuries
Your are an awesome science communicator! I hope your channel becomes huge!
Thank you 🙏 just passed 10k subs which is honestly crazy to me
You KNOW where that UBI money MUST come from in order for automation to be a net benefit for society. Everyone saw how computers replaced workers, by charging slightly less than having a whole office full of people calculating numbers and directed it towards the owners of the new wonder machines instead of lowering the price of their goods and services - it's the basic blueprint of any Tech Billionaire. Luddites are RIGHT in a world where everyone competes with everyone because the only ones benefiting from automation are the owners.
That's right, the convenience of automation in any form especially in a world where corporations control everything is entirely for their benefit, not the workers. The fact that corporations invest in generative AI with the purpose of depowering creative people is the proof in the pudding.
It would make people a lot more reliant on companies and the state. Its a model that conveniently does not challenge monopolistic tendencies.
It's truly a sad state of affairs when Luddites are only the bad guys in the world I want, and not in the world I have. I guess that's just motivation for me to make it so they indeed are wrong in the world we have.
Joining the debate. Why don't we automatize while still paying for the workers (I mean only manufacturing workers, because I'm also only talking about the automatization of manufacture processes, not administration processes.) the amout they used to produce before the automatization, or even use that amount to professionalize them? The reason I think that it don't naturally happens it's because the private and public capital wouldn't be growing as much as if these workes where just excluded from the economy. I also mainly think that the capitalistc logic of infinite growth in which the world economics work doesn't allow it happening neither. Hope my point was understandable, what you people think?
In order for UBI to work, we need to remove basically the housing market.
But to remove the housing market, we need to have UBI first.
Gross simplification, but its mostly accurate and i hate it.
You need neither UBI to decommodify the housing market nor do you need to decommodify housing to implement UBI. Both simply take the political will to actually do it.
5:09 that's excellent symbolism!
I worry that AI is both going to cost jobs AND make life worse because it will be used in ways it isn’t suited. Who wants to talk to a robot? No one. Yet disposing of expensive customer service call centers was one of the first things it could do… kinda.
Basically no one steering the boat cares about the quality of life or comfort of most of its passengers
Dude that first example is so much more effective than the broken window fallacy 😂 that should be the new go-to. The schism eater fallacy 🤣
It's far worse than useless middle management. Entire industries and companies are pointless when you take a step back from all the bs. The entire modern finance industry is the most ineffective bureaucracy ever created. But because it operates as muh free market it's a blindspot to most people and they'd rather focus on some government agency hiring a janitor when they could just let the building fall apart instead.
Utah legalized "supplements", which are mostly worthless. You know the stand in product idea of the "Widget"? It doesn't matter what the product is, the lesson is about something else. Supplements are basically mythical products in a billions sized industry. They have "standards", but the only ones based on truly valid science are government mandated safety and contamination systems and machines.
Utah legalized "supplements", which are mostly worthless. You know the stand in product idea of the "Widget"? It doesn't matter what the product is, the lesson is about something else. Supplements are basically mythical products in a billions sized industry. They have "standards", but the only ones based on truly valid science are government mandated safety and contamination systems and machines.
Heh that's true, it can be extrapolated to that level, you get whole industries that act as pointless middle managers.
this is something I have intuitively felt for a long time, so much random knicknacks get made that never sell because we need to employ people, middle managers, supply companies for supply companies etc
Food is a necessity and should not be a luxury thing.
That was a crazy statement. Maybe he means eating out?
It was a joke
r/wooosh? I think that's still a thing!
capitalists are conditioned psychopaths. Literally tens of millions of tons of unsold food is thrown away every year. Perfectly good food, thrown into the trash because it wasn't bought. And somehow people can scoff at the idea of simply giving it to people who are hungry.
Love this video - keep -em comin'! And your explanation of tariffs is the clearest explanation I've seen, and addresses the oft confused elements of them. Great stuff and here's hoping 2025 is the year you can buy a much better laptop to edit videos on! :D
I can’t wait to tell someone the shit eating story.
you re forgetting that in the year 2000 the IT sector was starting to penetrate into the education system top down, universities got their servers, then colleges got their servers, then high schools got their servers and now primary schools are starting to get their servers.
"why do they need servers?" well because the security involved in integrating IT into the classroom, they want to make sure that each device is easily connectable but easily isolated an easily removable from IT perspective and that takes quality trained people that know what they are doing that earn the high end of the 5 figure inching into the 6 figure territory.
Technology has always been pitched to save labor, or allow us more free time. The only free time it usually gives people is free from a job. Until they shrink the workweek, or give us some other way to live, I don't see many people excited about this but CEOs.
It actually would if you were content with the life niveau of 50 or 100 years ago. I mean I could work so much less if I wanted only the exact stuff my great-grandparents had.
Tbf, ai, or really generative ai, has some issues besides the "it will take my job part". Like the large scale theft of artwork that was required to make it. But I do agree that it is a large part of it. And as artist myself maybe I would be less bothered if it didn't threatened a future where I could no longer do the art I enjoy because now it is no longer profitabe and i still need to make a living somehow.
Like you said in this video. In general nobody dreams of having to do a job. Even if your job is something you enjoy it would be better if you could do that without the pressures that accompany it being a job.
I was a programmer for a while. And programming is something I used to enjoy. Then it became my job and that took a lot of the joy out of it. Had that not happened im sure I would be doing a lot more programming today.
Omg I can’t believe younger me was right that “number of jobs” was a weird metric to judge an economy by
Number of jobs, GDP, GNP, etc… yeah they’re bad metrics from a human perspective, they’re only used because they can be objectively measured. Imagine basing your annual economic progress off of “how you feel”… we “felt better in 2024 vs 2023”….
3:10 Given that there is a a shortage of people going into teaching and also both more pupils and a demand for even better education quality. The obvious solution is to make existing teachers more efficient. Is the market response to that, not just hiring said admin staff, redistributing administration chores previously done by teachers to the new staff/job (which is more scalable due to being more cushy). Sure the amount of total employees increase, but it’s the only way to scale. Obviously the flat here is that you’re assuming the supply of teachers is fixed when in reality, by reducing class sizes and the amount of classes each teacher has to teach each day the job can be made more attractive. Though the best solution can be found by comparing the cost of hiring some amount more administrations to hiring some other amount more teachers (though I suspect teachers are underpaid compared to administrators if you consider (stress*responsibility*job difficulty - job enjoyment) as the metric for how salary should be calculated. Probably because they have to compete with other industry (including finance) for administrators.
Do you have any reports looking at the F35 supply chain efficiency? I'd be curious to see just how compact it could be, since such a complex piece of machinery would be expected to have a pretty complex supply chain. I've heard people make comment about military contractors spreading themselves out to influence politicians but I've never seen someone really try to substantiate it
Civ industrial supply and manufacturing chains are also spread out. It's rare for one company to have a do-everything plant.
If the Government actually wanted to increase jobs, they would build industry...
Tariffs aren't paid by exports, they are paid by importers
Same effect
This views economics in a vacuum rather than understanding the nuances of real world issues.
Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you got - the less shit you eat.
Good one! LOL
10/10 video. You explained the concept very well!
Most economists are Keynesians. What did you expect?
Three points I want to make: only owners benefit from new technologies, two people work more than one person working double and AI is a desperate effort to compete against more populous countries.
On the first point, a friend of mine who is an engineer close to retiring told me that when he started working he used pencil and paper, while now uses all sorts of advanced computer software to make the same sketches of prototypes. His productivity has gone up many times over, but his salary hasn't and he still has to work eight hours a day. Meaning that the many times X rise in productivity went all in the hands of the owners of the conpanies he worked and works for.
On the second point. The typical workday for many people is an eight hours shift. Let's say that someone is very consciencious and wants to work ten hours. Let's say there is an even more ambitious fellow that is willing to work fourteen hours in a day. You then take two other workers doing a regular eight hours shift and they have already reached a higher amount of work hours than the first dude. Being rich means being able to command the work of other people. That opens up all sorts of possibilities. Most importantly, it makes any implementation of a business ideas much faster because there are multiple people taking care of whatever needs to be done. Technology, not even AI, can change this simple fact. Maybe you can send more e-mails using chatGPT and that's a good thing, but you'll never be able to beat two people doing the same thing as you, let alone several people.
On the third point. The US has a huge power structure around the world that has to manage and maintain. They have to compete with many countries, which although are not able to surpass the US individually, they are certainly a huge challenge when faced together. There are eight billion people on the planet but only three hundred million in the US. My guess is that people in key positions think that they can compensate this population handicap by increasing productivity with AI. Problem is that also other countries have a very similar technology so it doesn't seem like a decisive solution.
5:49 JD Vance spotted 🔥
JD Vance from thrift shop 😅
Lolll
That is actually him, he did a brief stunt as a stock video man when he was younger.
Subscribed! We need more Graeber in this world.
So basically like any stock market transaction? Just pushing numbers around without creating a single penny of value
7:57 Great point!
The incentives for meaningless work (nonessential “productivity”) can be and most likely are significantly a bottom up problem.
I'm favoured, $22K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America.
As a beginner what do I need to do? How can I invest, on which platform? If you know any please share.
Waking up every 14th of each month to 210,000 dollars it's a blessing to I and my family... Big gratitude to Maureen Duke 🙌🏻
Yeah, 253k from Maureen duke, looking up to acquire a new House, blessings.
Investing $15,000 and received $174,000
Please who is this Mrs Maureen
This really feels like Greece pre-2008. So many unnecessary jobs that produce nothing.
I don't agree with your tariff explanation. The customer will pay for it, not a foreign company.
The importing company pays the tariff in the first instance. As a second-order effect of the tariff, domestic consumers may 'pay' (so to speak) in terms of higher prices and/or reduced access to goods, while the foreign exporter may 'pay' (so to speak) in terms of reduced sales. The severity of the impact on consumers and exporters will depend on the specifics of each case.
@laudermarauder true. The import company will pay. but he said Chinese companies will pay, which is not true.
@@laudermarauder they all pay. the consumer eats the extra cost when they buy the product, but not everyone is willing to do so, so it hurts demand and makes them less profitable. of course, that also reduces competition in the market, which itself causes people to pay more...
I've seen that teachers graph before. It's a percentage graph, what are the results of you comparing the raw numbers? If you're starting with one admin staff increasing it by 88% wouldn't even be one new hire per school. It might not actually be working that way but ive seen it be used to make the same point before
food is not a luxury
Fast food is
the joke
whoosh
The production quality and humour of the video was excellent.
It's nice to see a channel that is actually interesting and thought-provoking and doesn't post AI garbage read by a computer.
You were doing rather well explaining a topic to me that I knew nothing about. But when you mentioned the F-35... I don't know a lot about the f-35, but what I do know is that Lockheed Martin does not build all the parts, they build the plane. Did you know that the wheels for an f-35 are made by an English company? What about the tires? The wires? The glass? It's a supply chain. Of course it's gonna look like that. Ryan Mcbeth does an amazing job of explaining this in his video "debunking the military industrial complex" or something like that...
There is no organization that values efficiency, like the US military. The reason why the defense budget is so high is because we have a large AND extremely competent military.
From what I understood, parts of your military are secret and compartmentalized. This is sometimes a feature actively sought out.
I still see them as an industry interest, but there are many different industry interests.
Contract soldiers are more expensive than European conscript reservists who support themselves on their day job in peacetime. Especially when an institution has to run its own pension system. Our soldiers don't have a full, separate welfare state just for them.
honestly i feel like the govt. would never do universal basic income. in their perspective, it is wasting money. i feel like they would just k!1ll half the population if they would ever do that. but i dont know. i love this video bro i hope to see more from your channel
I recall hearing a joke where someone said if we had Star Trek replicator machines they’d be banned because we’d have too much unemployment.
@@sulimanthemagnificent4893 thats funny lmao
@@Stxrmymp4 It’s not untrue though lmao.
On the note of replicators, a good video on trekonomics (if that’s even a the thing) was made by Feral Historian, he proposes an interesting UBI hypothetical.
@@sulimanthemagnificent4893 thats interesting, thanks for letting me know
An issue is in determining what jobs are 'useless' and in a lot of these discussions people just come to the consensus that useless jobs are either the one they currently work in and hate, or a job they think is "obviously" doesn't contribute anything, when these things are not obvious in reality.
At the end of the day there's no definitive measurement of `usefulness' and even those admin workers who might only spend an hour a day doing something we'd conventionally think of as productive may find the rest of the tasks they do enjoyable, or at least as good as the work alternatives they might be considering.
In terms of the dock workers, we shouldn't be giving them crap for wanting to keep their jobs. We don't actually live in the world where there is a UBI (or benefit of your choice) that can replace the wages they currently earn, so we shouldn't expect them to welcome automation with open arms. I know the comparison with lamp-lighters was done mostly for comedic effect, but it's a bit unfair to be so emphatic that they're standing in the way of progress given the huge amounts of technology/automation currently used in ports.
I think a burger flipper at McD has a real job because its a service where I can clearly point to a previously unflipped burger.
This is harder to do with an influencer or communicator or financial advisor.
@@SusCalvin You could say that the influencer's job is to provide entertainment and to advertise (which would also provide utility to the person trying to sell the product).
And then the financial adviser can tell their client that it probably isn't wise to invest in *insert fad investment of the week here*.
In both of these cases, as with your McDonalds example, you can always argue that perhaps the metaphorical burger should never have been flipped in the first place. But that just brings us back to my original point.