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.
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.
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.
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 UA-cam Gurus. Who knows? Maybe then you could do this full-time.
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)...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
"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"
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is the situation where the American company matches the price that the Chinese seller not considered when it comes to implementing tariffs? It's not like this knowledge of how much the product has to increase in price to maintain the profits by Chinese company is hidden and tariffs are public knowledge, so even the consumers knows exactly why its more expensive. The Chinese company's profits remain the same while the American company now has additional profits? Isn't this the more likely outcome rather than actually trying to compete? Free profits for doing nothing
Not sure where is got his tariffs structure explanation. Tariffs in the United States are paid by importers. Exceptions for products that aren't manufactured here are rare because tariffs are extremely specific. From 2017 to 2021, the executive admin released lists of thousands on individual items that tariffs applied to.
Tarifs are only sensible when a domestic industry is struggling. The Tarif then protects the company from being undercut by foreign companies. This gives the domestic companies the chance to develope by reinvesting the profits. Domestic companies raising prices in the short term should be compensated by falling prices in the long term. If the domestic companies are not struggling then the tariffs just increase the profit of the industry and generally harm the consumer.
@@blanciwiinom8060 Why should domestic industry grow? Tariffs are sort of antithetical to free market, but of course, those getting the advantage are very unlikely to point that out.
@@edumazieri Trade Tarifs protect domestic companies by increasing the price of imported goods. This gives the domestic companies the chance to sell their goods at a a higher price than the imported goods before the Tarif, but at a lower price than imported goods with Tarif. The Profit that can be generated by this price increase ideally is invested in the domestic industry's growing and learning to produce goods at a lower price. Finally if everything goes well the Tarifs can be lowered after the domestic industry has caught up to the international market.
@@blanciwiinom8060 Tarrifs won’t automatically results in a domestic competitive industry. This has been tried many times in the car industry. At one point every nation wanted their own car manufacturer and used tariffs to protect them. This resulted in inferior cars for their own people while the manufacturers never got competitive. You can’t have a competitive industry in everything. There are may reasons why some industries are just better suited for certain places.
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.
This video doesn't cover it but there is another excuse which I think is actually worst than the jobs one. Built in obsolescence I think it is far worst. It is often given the same excuses as by making products wear out faster intentionally it means there is more demand for them, this higher demand means more jobs to make them and over course higher GDP. However I think it's worst because in the case of just Jobs it's simply wasting money for no real gain, or at best a public works project so people don't starve. Where as built in obsolescence actively increases poverty. Basically you have a downward spiral of productivity which isn't represented by the only economic measure that economist seem to focus on "GDP". If you only need to buy say one of each appliance in your life cause they just last so long then it's a lot easier to build wealth. Built in obsolescence undermines people's ability to get out of poverty as there are curtain things wealthy people tend to do that poor people don't. One is they tend to buy quality products that last a long time, studies have show that poor people often end up spending more on cheap disposable stuff than if they had bought the more expensive up front item that last a long time. Thus compounding their poverty by the fact that they have higher cost while having lower income to absorb that cost as they just try to maintain their current standard of living. Sure there are people who have so much money that they buy the newest thing regardless of if the old one is no longer functional but built in obsolescence also damage wealth growth here too as used product market may not be as reliable and thus again even though getting it cheaper than new those who lack funds end up buy stuff with a short shelf life meaning they will once again have to fork over cash to get back to normal. And when times get tight the expense of having to replace that item designed to fail could be what breaks their bank.
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.
I agree with your points, but one thing we should not overlook is the ingrained value of 'working' for most people. It's the belief that we need to 'work' in order to deserve something, so it's not entirely about the practical value.
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.
Thank you, Almighty Algorithm, for recommending this channel, and not yet another scam or ai trash from a content mill (I hope so). Liked and subscribed in the mean time.
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.
The difference between old automation concerns and modern AI concerns is that AI is being used, not to eliminate redundancy or annoying tasks. But to substitute vocational creative pursuits for cheap substitutes so they don't have to commission that creative work. Automation was pushed originally with the promise of eliminating tedious and awful jobs in exchange of safer artistic endeavor. But they're preying on those too now.
I have to point it out that unlike other resources humans aren't as highly adaptable as other modern resources, commodities and internacional capital flows. Even if there is immigration it's not easy for humans to go abroad without certain risks. Conglomerates on the other hand have economies of scale when opening industruies abroad. As human species we have created a society that already outpaces the ability of average working class to adapt to change. Another interesting point is that until recently the tech giants were employing like crazy. The rationale was to always have a pool of talented people in their rows even if productivity was a little lower, some argue that it had the effect of drain away brain resource from their competitors. But I am not really sure about the causal relationship. Of course that doesn't detract from the fact that they really don't measure expenses that much when trying to recruit top brain power.
As far as econometrics, as an amateur I'm partial to the "housing cost overburdened rate." Now, different organizations define this rate differently, but by the OECD definition, but by the US definition the US rate is 31.3%. Meaning, 31.3% of households spend over 30% of the household income on housing-related expenses.
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.
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.
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.
You might think this. My experience showed me that at least some private companies get bloated with useless admin tasks when they get big and have lots of revenue to burn. It's mostly a middle management politics thing. The bloat is offset by name recognition and marketing capabilities.
@Rhys-x4e Honestly I do hate government bailouts on companies. If you can not survive on your own you deserve to fail. Having bailouts means they can make dumb risky decisions with no consequences. A company is not a person because it is ran by a group of people instead of being an individual person. The group does not deserve government welfare when they do bad decisions.
@@thewhitewolf58 Nobody likes bail outs, but they're necessary, so we should fix the reason WHY they're necessary which is over reliance on private sector. IF tax payer is paying for the damn thing anyway, might as well own it.
the schools part might actually be wrong or wrongly described. the best example i know actually comes from east germany aka the former GDR. they had professional coffee makers in order to have more jobs.
I guess the main question we need to be asking ourselves is, “How do we ensure these gains benefit everyone and not just the rich?” If greater efficiency requires a great deal of capital, only large entities will be able to remain competitive, meaning there will only be a few players that control the market which lead to monopolistic tendencies. Situations like this lead to the rich getting richer and allow them to further shift the playing field in their favor. I’m all for increases in efficiency and automation. It seems like there is a lot of exciting potential for improvement. We just need to make sure that the markets are operating as they should, and that market interests align with our interests.
One thing I'll mention about tariffs that was neglected: If a local company is making a competitive product to an overseas one, tariffs can let them raise their prices. It's like a tax but instead of funding government programs, it just goes to the companies bottom line.
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
Tariffs are not paid by the foreign countries, they are paid by the manufacturer or buyers in the USA. The idea is if cost more to import materials from overseas then they'll get it here in the USA, therefore mkaing more jobs. Example would be if 50% tariff was put on chinese steel, if it cost less to manufacture steel here as to paying a higher price for chinese steel then they'll obviously make or buy it here instead, which inceeases jobs in the steel industry
I'm favoured only God knows how much I praise Him, $230k every 4weeks! I now have a big mansion and can now afford anything and also support God’s work and the church.
Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!
I remember giving her my first saved up $20000 and she opened a brokerage account with it for me, it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me.
For one of my first jobs, it was in manufacturing. For years it took one person to do a specific job. When I took over the role I asked my boss, if I complete this job for the day, can I go home early? They said yes: I completed the days work (and extra tasks) before lunch was over, to higher standards that previous workers. It's sad that in most situations I would have just been given more work (without a raise) despite the amount of work I had done had already been valued at what I was paid.
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.
Enjoying the video so far, but I just wanted to ask if you have a script you read out for the voice-over - if so, would it be possible to upload that as the subtitles? The automatic ones are OK (and I appreciate that you "approved" them just because seeing the words come up one-by-one is annoying) but "$200" turning into "2 $0000",principles/principals, a tax/"attacks" and things like that ("blitz Creek" in your other recent video) can be a little confusing.
The technical, correct answer to "who pays a given tax" is "it depends on elasticities of supply and demand". This applies to any tax, even income taxes: if you're a highly qualified professional in high demand, a income tax raise will affect your employers/contractors more than yourself. Even if technically you pay the tax.
Eh I get that but you can't ignore what a tax is meant to serve. Comparing a situation where employer pays 2000 to employee and 500 in income tax vs a situation where employer just pays the 2000 to employee, the employee (and possibly the employer too) benefits more from the first one. Those 500 would be used for infrastructure/services that both sides own and benefit from, it's not like the money disappears into the ether. Though proper balance is needed, obviously.
2:243:32 I wonder if increased funding for the US army is meant to be a jobs program as well. 6:03 I heard that this was a big program in Greece right before their debt problem blew up. 6:34 BS jobs. And having unnecessary jobs in an office. 7:58 I heard that this was a really big problem before the 80s. I was told that before computers, you needed a lot of administrative people to report up the chain of command so the CEO knew what was going on in the company. Also, these managers could get away with a lot of things contrary to the company's objective since these managers had little oversight themselves. I think consultants from Mckenzie in the 80s were genuinely valuable back then, because so many companies were run really badly back then. Last spring, a leading venture-capital investor in Silicon Valley said that half of Google’s white-collar employees do no “real work”. David Ulevitch thinks that many could “probably be let go tomorrow” and the company wouldn’t notice. He also mentioned the “growing professional managerial class” in America as a “weakness, not a strength”.
from what i think i understand, automation as in the current ai hype that's happening all around, is kind of bs, companies are pushing it hard rich people too, it just tells me it ain't in my best interest to see it come to fruition right now, especially as instead of the shit jobs being replaced it's the world of art that's in danger of being overtaken by computers, stuff like writing, programming, music, drawing, etc. mostly because those are jobs that usually pay a lot more compared to the shit jobs, therefore it just looks to me as if rich people are trying to have this tech so they can save on those salaries later, an investment in the future if you will, and what are those people going to do once they're out of their job? well if we delete intellectual/art jobs then there is only manual work left, it feels like the stuff that can generate the highest profits for the lowest amount of costs is where humans are getting replaced, in the sense that without them having to pay for salaries they'd be happier, therefore they are investing in the tech to stop having to pay those high salaries. (and why do i think it's salaries? well look at what companies do all the time, oh wait why do we pay these people 25€/h when we can have production in china and pay them slavery salaries!? and so they just move production outside the country they operate in)
This video has by far the best explanation of tariffs I've ever seen. I don't get why so many idiots in the comments are trying to argue against it by restating things that you included in your own explanation, or by making contrary claims which are obviously wrong.
I'm afraid of AI, because companies have a history of giving the extra profit from better efficiency to their shareholders and executives, not their workers, since around the 80s. So if AI reduces the number of X jobs by half, then the remaining half will not earn twice as much for their increased productivity, they will just earn the same. But the other half has to look for jobs now, which they may or may not find, especially if their profession is obsoleted by AI or other technological advancement. If half of some profession lost their jobs because of AI, and the other half earned twice as much, that would be a net positive overall, even if the unlucky ones need to learn a new marketable skill.
"The private sector is more efficient", but they dont say at what. The private sectors total job is to make a profit, if they provide services whilst making a profit that's a plus.
in reality the problem is the job model in of itself. but the question is always how do convince people to work without it!? the threat of poverty seems to be a powerful motivator, but it's led to all the problems we see here. i feel there is a decent model somewhere much better than what we currently have, but fxck me if I'm ever going to figure it out. let alone be in a position to implement it outside of simulators. i barely know how my mind works let alone someone else's. but i do feel there's a scenario where people would just work without much motivation. i mean half the shxt i imagine or sometimes try to do in my free time could be considered work, but i'm also weird for that I guess. at the end of the day, it's a resource management and administration problem. but the big problem with a lot of managers and administrators is that they always seem to find a way to not have to manage or administrate and pass the burden onto someone else that typically doesn't have the authority to be effective in their role. division of labor is difficult, resource management is difficult, administration is difficult, but yet we somehow always have a tendency to pick the worst people for it.
But schools do need a lot of support staff. There are lots of jobs at schools for which you don't need a teaching license. We didn't staff schools properly before, which burned teachers out and helped reinforce a generation to not get a teaching license; now there is a teacher shortage and students always needed more staff.
Weirdly, I'm not worried about AI taking my job. I mean, it's taken our software provider 2 years to add subtotals to an invoice. I don't think the machines are as smart as people think they are. Mostly the threat I see from them is the ease of bullshitting. It's now become common for senior managers to write emails using AI to make them wordier and look more professional with less effort, and then for workers to feed their CEO-speak emails to an AI to figure out if there's anything in that word salad they actually needed to know. That same phenomenon is in the world of scams where bespoke scams that used to be a full time job for the scammer to pull off can now be automated and run on hundreds or thousands of potential victims at once. Maybe their catch rate is slightly lower, but they make up for it in volume. Both of these things waste time and human creativity. Probably create jobs, tho.
The real solution to this problem is obvious stop worrying about jobs and start thinking about income.in order to make money you have to add value. If you are not adventurous you add value only by labour. But in most cases the value you can add that way is small. Better to think of way that you can work that will make someone else some money and then take a portion of that profit. A friend of mine realised that there were a few under employed people in his suburb who had bookkeeping skills. He thus went around to local businesses and determined that a lot of them wanted part time bookkeepers, because they couldn’t afford to employ someone full time. My friend thus set up a business where he hires out part time bookkeepers to local businesses. He does some of the work himself, but earns most of his income from getting a percentage of the fees the businesses pay for the service after disbursing the majority of those fees to the part time bookkeepers.
Love this. Educational and you bring a sense of humour! Just one criticism.. the jump to tarrifs came out of nowhere for me. Perhaps there was a change in volume level? Or it needed a smoother narrative transition?
He also fucked up the explanation. Tariffs are not paid by the foreign company to get through customs. Tariffs are paid by the importing company because they were importing.
Exactly what I have always seen. It's insane in medical places. Prison system is like this. Problem is what do you do when everyone is working 20 hours or 50 percent aren't working at all? I think everyone should be working part time.
"If automation replaces all workers, who gets the money?" This is the most controversial question about future. Normally, machine owners gets the profit and share some profits to operator, that's what job is about automation. Now, fully automated machine, assuming regulation hasn't caught up to technology yet, will kick every operators out and the owner takes full profit in today's system. Supposed we let the government buy every machines, and no political exploitation is in place so that everyone is the owner of the country, thus, every property the government owns is also owned by every people in the country and every one gets they money. This is universal basic income. But, if the government didn't buy all the machine and still want to provide UBI, then... it's only option is to print money from thin air. And, maybe you could tell me what will happen next. However, how would the government buy all the machines if they don't print money? Well, money is trust isn't it, so it's not thin air, it's the people's psyche where money is from... Plus, operating machines means you're responsible for it's existence and it's works. An accident will cost you more than it could make. So might as well outsource that responsibility to workers, I guessed.
“Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
That sounds like cancer with extra steps
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
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.
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.
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
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 UA-cam Gurus. Who knows? Maybe then you could do this full-time.
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
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.
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.
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
@@crisneros1725 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.
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”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Tariffs are paid by the consumer, no matter which way you cut it
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.
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.
Bullshit jobs needs to be required reading for politicians, economists, and pretty much everyone else.
I can’t wait to tell someone the shit eating story.
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
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?
"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.
Your are an awesome science communicator! I hope your channel becomes huge!
Thank you 🙏 just passed 10k subs which is honestly crazy to me
There's a line in George Orwell's 1984 where they talk about keeping people occupied by digging holes then filling them back up.
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
Actually too big to fail is number one I beleive
That is indeed stiff competition
Well, the shit ain't going to eat itself.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is the situation where the American company matches the price that the Chinese seller not considered when it comes to implementing tariffs? It's not like this knowledge of how much the product has to increase in price to maintain the profits by Chinese company is hidden and tariffs are public knowledge, so even the consumers knows exactly why its more expensive. The Chinese company's profits remain the same while the American company now has additional profits? Isn't this the more likely outcome rather than actually trying to compete? Free profits for doing nothing
Not sure where is got his tariffs structure explanation. Tariffs in the United States are paid by importers. Exceptions for products that aren't manufactured here are rare because tariffs are extremely specific. From 2017 to 2021, the executive admin released lists of thousands on individual items that tariffs applied to.
Tarifs are only sensible when a domestic industry is struggling. The Tarif then protects the company from being undercut by foreign companies. This gives the domestic companies the chance to develope by reinvesting the profits.
Domestic companies raising prices in the short term should be compensated by falling prices in the long term.
If the domestic companies are not struggling then the tariffs just increase the profit of the industry and generally harm the consumer.
@@blanciwiinom8060 Why should domestic industry grow? Tariffs are sort of antithetical to free market, but of course, those getting the advantage are very unlikely to point that out.
@@edumazieri
Trade Tarifs protect domestic companies by increasing the price of imported goods. This gives the domestic companies the chance to sell their goods at a a higher price than the imported goods before the Tarif, but at a lower price than imported goods with Tarif.
The Profit that can be generated by this price increase ideally is invested in the domestic industry's growing and learning to produce goods at a lower price. Finally if everything goes well the Tarifs can be lowered after the domestic industry has caught up to the international market.
@@blanciwiinom8060 Tarrifs won’t automatically results in a domestic competitive industry. This has been tried many times in the car industry. At one point every nation wanted their own car manufacturer and used tariffs to protect them. This resulted in inferior cars for their own people while the manufacturers never got competitive. You can’t have a competitive industry in everything. There are may reasons why some industries are just better suited for certain places.
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.
This video doesn't cover it but there is another excuse which I think is actually worst than the jobs one. Built in obsolescence I think it is far worst. It is often given the same excuses as by making products wear out faster intentionally it means there is more demand for them, this higher demand means more jobs to make them and over course higher GDP. However I think it's worst because in the case of just Jobs it's simply wasting money for no real gain, or at best a public works project so people don't starve. Where as built in obsolescence actively increases poverty.
Basically you have a downward spiral of productivity which isn't represented by the only economic measure that economist seem to focus on "GDP". If you only need to buy say one of each appliance in your life cause they just last so long then it's a lot easier to build wealth. Built in obsolescence undermines people's ability to get out of poverty as there are curtain things wealthy people tend to do that poor people don't. One is they tend to buy quality products that last a long time, studies have show that poor people often end up spending more on cheap disposable stuff than if they had bought the more expensive up front item that last a long time. Thus compounding their poverty by the fact that they have higher cost while having lower income to absorb that cost as they just try to maintain their current standard of living.
Sure there are people who have so much money that they buy the newest thing regardless of if the old one is no longer functional but built in obsolescence also damage wealth growth here too as used product market may not be as reliable and thus again even though getting it cheaper than new those who lack funds end up buy stuff with a short shelf life meaning they will once again have to fork over cash to get back to normal. And when times get tight the expense of having to replace that item designed to fail could be what breaks their bank.
It's nice to see a channel that is actually interesting and thought-provoking and doesn't post AI garbage read by a computer.
Yes, very well elaborated. People need to see this video, especially those in power.
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 😅
I agree with your points, but one thing we should not overlook is the ingrained value of 'working' for most people. It's the belief that we need to 'work' in order to deserve something, so it's not entirely about the practical value.
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.
Thank you, Almighty Algorithm, for recommending this channel, and not yet another scam or ai trash from a content mill (I hope so).
Liked and subscribed in the mean time.
11:50 it's sad that having basic things like food and shelter feel like luxuries
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.
The changing tense in the intro tells me this channel really needs a proof reader.
The difference between old automation concerns and modern AI concerns is that AI is being used, not to eliminate redundancy or annoying tasks.
But to substitute vocational creative pursuits for cheap substitutes so they don't have to commission that creative work.
Automation was pushed originally with the promise of eliminating tedious and awful jobs in exchange of safer artistic endeavor. But they're preying on those too now.
People need to start working in schools, kindergardens, elderly care and health care(not administrators) and stop spending their days in cubicles!
I have to point it out that unlike other resources humans aren't as highly adaptable as other modern resources, commodities and internacional capital flows.
Even if there is immigration it's not easy for humans to go abroad without certain risks.
Conglomerates on the other hand have economies of scale when opening industruies abroad.
As human species we have created a society that already outpaces the ability of average working class to adapt to change.
Another interesting point is that until recently the tech giants were employing like crazy. The rationale was to always have a pool of talented people in their rows even if productivity was a little lower, some argue that it had the effect of drain away brain resource from their competitors. But I am not really sure about the causal relationship. Of course that doesn't detract from the fact that they really don't measure expenses that much when trying to recruit top brain power.
As far as econometrics, as an amateur I'm partial to the "housing cost overburdened rate." Now, different organizations define this rate differently, but by the OECD definition, but by the US definition the US rate is 31.3%. Meaning, 31.3% of households spend over 30% of the household income on housing-related expenses.
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.
Love your animations!
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.
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.
Big government gives bloat that you can not touch without black lash. Private companies do bare minimum work while charging as much as possible.
You might think this. My experience showed me that at least some private companies get bloated with useless admin tasks when they get big and have lots of revenue to burn. It's mostly a middle management politics thing. The bloat is offset by name recognition and marketing capabilities.
@goodfortunetoyou I guess people love to hire assistants to make themselves feel better.
Well that’s until someone new comes up and competes them out of business,
Well until the government bails them out
@Rhys-x4e Honestly I do hate government bailouts on companies. If you can not survive on your own you deserve to fail. Having bailouts means they can make dumb risky decisions with no consequences. A company is not a person because it is ran by a group of people instead of being an individual person. The group does not deserve government welfare when they do bad decisions.
@@thewhitewolf58 Nobody likes bail outs, but they're necessary, so we should fix the reason WHY they're necessary which is over reliance on private sector. IF tax payer is paying for the damn thing anyway, might as well own it.
i've always had this thought, great job explaining and putting it into perspective!
the schools part might actually be wrong or wrongly described. the best example i know actually comes from east germany aka the former GDR. they had professional coffee makers in order to have more jobs.
I guess the main question we need to be asking ourselves is, “How do we ensure these gains benefit everyone and not just the rich?” If greater efficiency requires a great deal of capital, only large entities will be able to remain competitive, meaning there will only be a few players that control the market which lead to monopolistic tendencies. Situations like this lead to the rich getting richer and allow them to further shift the playing field in their favor.
I’m all for increases in efficiency and automation. It seems like there is a lot of exciting potential for improvement. We just need to make sure that the markets are operating as they should, and that market interests align with our interests.
One thing I'll mention about tariffs that was neglected: If a local company is making a competitive product to an overseas one, tariffs can let them raise their prices. It's like a tax but instead of funding government programs, it just goes to the companies bottom line.
Love your videos!!Can I know what softwares do you use for creating videos?
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
Tariffs are not paid by the foreign countries, they are paid by the manufacturer or buyers in the USA.
The idea is if cost more to import materials from overseas then they'll get it here in the USA, therefore mkaing more jobs.
Example would be if 50% tariff was put on chinese steel, if it cost less to manufacture steel here as to paying a higher price for chinese steel then they'll obviously make or buy it here instead, which inceeases jobs in the steel industry
Amazing video!!! Who does ur editing?
I'm favoured only God knows how much I praise Him, $230k every 4weeks! I now have a big mansion and can now afford anything and also support God’s work and the church.
Wow that's huge, how do you make that much monthly?
Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!
I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
I earn from investing in the digital market with the guidance of (Ms. Evelyn Vera) Brokerage services. I'm happy to talk about it!!!
I remember giving her my first saved up $20000 and she opened a brokerage account with it for me, it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me.
For one of my first jobs, it was in manufacturing. For years it took one person to do a specific job. When I took over the role I asked my boss, if I complete this job for the day, can I go home early? They said yes: I completed the days work (and extra tasks) before lunch was over, to higher standards that previous workers. It's sad that in most situations I would have just been given more work (without a raise) despite the amount of work I had done had already been valued at what I was paid.
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.
Enjoying the video so far, but I just wanted to ask if you have a script you read out for the voice-over - if so, would it be possible to upload that as the subtitles? The automatic ones are OK (and I appreciate that you "approved" them just because seeing the words come up one-by-one is annoying) but "$200" turning into "2 $0000",principles/principals, a tax/"attacks" and things like that ("blitz Creek" in your other recent video) can be a little confusing.
This entire video truely explains a certified captialism moment
The technical, correct answer to "who pays a given tax" is "it depends on elasticities of supply and demand". This applies to any tax, even income taxes: if you're a highly qualified professional in high demand, a income tax raise will affect your employers/contractors more than yourself. Even if technically you pay the tax.
Eh I get that but you can't ignore what a tax is meant to serve. Comparing a situation where employer pays 2000 to employee and 500 in income tax vs a situation where employer just pays the 2000 to employee, the employee (and possibly the employer too) benefits more from the first one. Those 500 would be used for infrastructure/services that both sides own and benefit from, it's not like the money disappears into the ether. Though proper balance is needed, obviously.
More great stuff, keep it up, thanks.
Thanks, will do!
2:24 3:32
I wonder if increased funding for the US army is meant to be a jobs program as well.
6:03 I heard that this was a big program in Greece right before their debt problem blew up.
6:34 BS jobs. And having unnecessary jobs in an office.
7:58 I heard that this was a really big problem before the 80s.
I was told that before computers, you needed a lot of administrative people to report up the chain of command so the CEO knew what was going on in the company. Also, these managers could get away with a lot of things contrary to the company's objective since these managers had little oversight themselves.
I think consultants from Mckenzie in the 80s were genuinely valuable back then, because so many companies were run really badly back then.
Last spring, a leading venture-capital investor in Silicon Valley said that half of Google’s white-collar employees do no “real work”. David Ulevitch thinks that many could “probably be let go tomorrow” and the company wouldn’t notice.
He also mentioned the “growing professional managerial class” in America as a “weakness, not a strength”.
from what i think i understand, automation as in the current ai hype that's happening all around, is kind of bs, companies are pushing it hard rich people too, it just tells me it ain't in my best interest to see it come to fruition right now, especially as instead of the shit jobs being replaced it's the world of art that's in danger of being overtaken by computers, stuff like writing, programming, music, drawing, etc. mostly because those are jobs that usually pay a lot more compared to the shit jobs, therefore it just looks to me as if rich people are trying to have this tech so they can save on those salaries later, an investment in the future if you will, and what are those people going to do once they're out of their job? well if we delete intellectual/art jobs then there is only manual work left, it feels like the stuff that can generate the highest profits for the lowest amount of costs is where humans are getting replaced, in the sense that without them having to pay for salaries they'd be happier, therefore they are investing in the tech to stop having to pay those high salaries. (and why do i think it's salaries? well look at what companies do all the time, oh wait why do we pay these people 25€/h when we can have production in china and pay them slavery salaries!? and so they just move production outside the country they operate in)
Hey can u make video about how to research stuff like this?
Bro. Please make a video editing tutorial. Your editing style is really really good.
This video has by far the best explanation of tariffs I've ever seen. I don't get why so many idiots in the comments are trying to argue against it by restating things that you included in your own explanation, or by making contrary claims which are obviously wrong.
I'm afraid of AI, because companies have a history of giving the extra profit from better efficiency to their shareholders and executives, not their workers, since around the 80s. So if AI reduces the number of X jobs by half, then the remaining half will not earn twice as much for their increased productivity, they will just earn the same. But the other half has to look for jobs now, which they may or may not find, especially if their profession is obsoleted by AI or other technological advancement.
If half of some profession lost their jobs because of AI, and the other half earned twice as much, that would be a net positive overall, even if the unlucky ones need to learn a new marketable skill.
You earn my subs buddy, nice video
food is not a luxury
Fast food is
the joke
whoosh
Agree with everything, nice video!
If a job is to do work, and to work is to solve problems..
Tariffs aren't paid by exports, they are paid by importers
"The private sector is more efficient", but they dont say at what. The private sectors total job is to make a profit, if they provide services whilst making a profit that's a plus.
in reality the problem is the job model in of itself. but the question is always how do convince people to work without it!? the threat of poverty seems to be a powerful motivator, but it's led to all the problems we see here. i feel there is a decent model somewhere much better than what we currently have, but fxck me if I'm ever going to figure it out. let alone be in a position to implement it outside of simulators. i barely know how my mind works let alone someone else's. but i do feel there's a scenario where people would just work without much motivation. i mean half the shxt i imagine or sometimes try to do in my free time could be considered work, but i'm also weird for that I guess. at the end of the day, it's a resource management and administration problem. but the big problem with a lot of managers and administrators is that they always seem to find a way to not have to manage or administrate and pass the burden onto someone else that typically doesn't have the authority to be effective in their role. division of labor is difficult, resource management is difficult, administration is difficult, but yet we somehow always have a tendency to pick the worst people for it.
IDK, why UA-cam recommend this video but I like it.
Most economists are Keynesians. What did you expect?
I hear the “it creates jobs” fallacy all the time to justify economically destructive public works. Eg CAHSR
But schools do need a lot of support staff. There are lots of jobs at schools for which you don't need a teaching license. We didn't staff schools properly before, which burned teachers out and helped reinforce a generation to not get a teaching license; now there is a teacher shortage and students always needed more staff.
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.
Weirdly, I'm not worried about AI taking my job. I mean, it's taken our software provider 2 years to add subtotals to an invoice. I don't think the machines are as smart as people think they are.
Mostly the threat I see from them is the ease of bullshitting. It's now become common for senior managers to write emails using AI to make them wordier and look more professional with less effort, and then for workers to feed their CEO-speak emails to an AI to figure out if there's anything in that word salad they actually needed to know. That same phenomenon is in the world of scams where bespoke scams that used to be a full time job for the scammer to pull off can now be automated and run on hundreds or thousands of potential victims at once. Maybe their catch rate is slightly lower, but they make up for it in volume.
Both of these things waste time and human creativity. Probably create jobs, tho.
The real solution to this problem is obvious stop worrying about jobs and start thinking about income.in order to make money you have to add value. If you are not adventurous you add value only by labour. But in most cases the value you can add that way is small. Better to think of way that you can work that will make someone else some money and then take a portion of that profit. A friend of mine realised that there were a few under employed people in his suburb who had bookkeeping skills. He thus went around to local businesses and determined that a lot of them wanted part time bookkeepers, because they couldn’t afford to employ someone full time. My friend thus set up a business where he hires out part time bookkeepers to local businesses. He does some of the work himself, but earns most of his income from getting a percentage of the fees the businesses pay for the service after disbursing the majority of those fees to the part time bookkeepers.
Love this. Educational and you bring a sense of humour!
Just one criticism.. the jump to tarrifs came out of nowhere for me. Perhaps there was a change in volume level? Or it needed a smoother narrative transition?
It was a last minute addition for… reasons…
@@Micro-Econ-YTThat is painfully obvious.
He also fucked up the explanation. Tariffs are not paid by the foreign company to get through customs. Tariffs are paid by the importing company because they were importing.
Exactly what I have always seen. It's insane in medical places. Prison system is like this. Problem is what do you do when everyone is working 20 hours or 50 percent aren't working at all? I think everyone should be working part time.
"If automation replaces all workers, who gets the money?" This is the most controversial question about future. Normally, machine owners gets the profit and share some profits to operator, that's what job is about automation. Now, fully automated machine, assuming regulation hasn't caught up to technology yet, will kick every operators out and the owner takes full profit in today's system.
Supposed we let the government buy every machines, and no political exploitation is in place so that everyone is the owner of the country, thus, every property the government owns is also owned by every people in the country and every one gets they money. This is universal basic income. But, if the government didn't buy all the machine and still want to provide UBI, then... it's only option is to print money from thin air. And, maybe you could tell me what will happen next. However, how would the government buy all the machines if they don't print money?
Well, money is trust isn't it, so it's not thin air, it's the people's psyche where money is from...
Plus, operating machines means you're responsible for it's existence and it's works. An accident will cost you more than it could make. So might as well outsource that responsibility to workers, I guessed.
this is deep. great video!
I'm currently on a mental health leave of absence from my job and I can't imagine going back. Like...at all. I have never felt freer in my life.
Yep I had to change my schedule